Split the Labor: Separating Evidence Interpretation from Decision Aggregation
Systems that ask a language model to reach a conclusion from many sources usually concatenate them into one prompt. This conflates two operations with different requirements. Interpreting a source rewards capacity and context. Combining interpretations rewards fixed arithmetic, comparability across instances, and the option to return nothing. Once separated, the design problem becomes the interface between them. We propose a four-field evidence tuple (hypothesis, reliability bucket, rationale, provenance) and show that fixing it determines both halves. The separation also reveals a failure mod
Lineage graph
Paper → model → repo connections mined from source citations (Tier-1 exact match).
Why these links exist
Every edge carries a method, confidence, and the source snippet that justified it — so bad links are debuggable.
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 49%Cutting RAG inference costs 6x starts with deciding what never reaches the LLM →
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 48%The biggest surprise while building an AI verification system wasn't the AI. →
- LinkedLinked via arxiv author · 85%Zhelun Wu →
“Split the Labor: Separating Evidence Interpretation from Decision Aggregation”
