Source-grounded AI writing
Reference evidence constrains what you may say; manuscript context determines what belongs here.
Flowing combines two kinds of grounding that solve different problems. Reference-evidence grounding ties claims to inspectable text from selected PDFs—and, after Recall, red / green / yellow cards check the draft itself against the retrieved evidence set. Manuscript-context grounding keeps a revision or continuation aligned with the discourse role and narrative at the current cursor position.
Key facts
- Flowing is a desktop writing app—not a browser chat window with no library.
- Prepare → Write → References → Recall → Ask with context → Polish → Continue writing is the core loop.
- Keyword recall matches draft terms to passages across your imported PDFs.
- After Recall, qualifying paragraphs are checked against the retrieved evidence: red contradicts, green marks direct entailment of the same claim, yellow flags a useful qualifier.
- Context chips attach draft or library passages to each AI request.
- Reference evidence and manuscript context are distinct inputs; Flowing keeps both in the writing loop.
- Continue generates new discourse; polish optimizes existing discourse—they are not the same task.
- Polish targets discourse function (argument flow, claim calibration)—not synonym swapping.
Two kinds of grounding
Reference-evidence grounding asks whether a source passage supports the claim, mechanism, causal verb, and certainty level. Manuscript-context grounding asks whether the next sentence performs the right discourse role at this exact cursor position. The first constrains what the text may responsibly say; the second determines what the text should say here.
Grounding does not make interpretation automatic or human review optional. Recall exposes matched passages, Ask works from context chips you attach, and evidence-bearing polish or continuation results show passages to inspect. Optional OpenAlex recommendations are a separate, off-by-default discovery aid.
Red, green, and yellow cards on the draft
After Recall has highlighted keywords and matching snippet cards, Flowing automatically checks qualifying paragraphs against the retrieved library evidence. A left-gutter mark opens “Check paragraph against library evidence”: the paragraph on the left, cards on the right. This is not the same as evidence panels on polish or continue-writing suggestions—those attach sources to an AI rewrite. Here the object under review is the sentence already in the draft.
Cards are claim-scoped against the retrieved evidence set (one or two complementary passages), not 1:1 with a snippet. Red means the claim contradicts that evidence in polarity, number, mechanism, or scope. Green means the source directly entails the same claim, polarity, and scope—paraphrase or a quantitative result is enough; extra scientific inference is not. The underline is the most complete contiguous claim that is fully entailed. Yellow is a useful qualifier or extension that is not already in the paragraph; it is not “the evidence is missing.” Purple highlights mark keyword matches; they are not a fourth verdict. The system does not rewrite the paragraph or search the open web.
Two principles behind polish and continue
Continue writing generates new discourse—e.g., introduce representative studies after a claim, then synthesize. Polish optimizes discourse you already wrote—organizing evidence, calibrating claims, fixing scope drift. Deep polish with accuracy review is closer to academic revision than “make it sound better.”
Flowing’s prompt design follows: prefer improving a paragraph’s discourse function over improving its wording. A successful suggestion makes your argument easier to follow—not merely more elegant.
The six-step workflow
Prepare by importing reference PDFs. Write in rich text or LaTeX with live preview. Recall surfaces relevant library passages for keywords in your draft. Ask with context for synthesis or clarification on attached passages. Evidence-grounded revision improves paragraphs with attached sources. Continue writing extends your thread with cited evidence—not boilerplate.
Each step keeps the manuscript and your sources in one workspace, so you spend less time switching between PDF reader, chat tab, and editor.
When to choose source-grounded writing
Choose this approach when the deliverable will be reviewed for accuracy—journal submissions, theses, grant proposals, and literature reviews. Skip it when you only need unstructured brainstorming with no citation obligations.
Flowing is optimized for the first case. See our literature review and fake citations guides for field-specific workflows.