Use this workflow after a chart already exists and you need to decide which citations belong in the finished work product. In &AI, citation review is where users turn generated suggestions into a defensible chart by approving strong support, rejecting weak support, refining context, and leaving notes for later legal analysis.

The chart review interface is the main quality-control surface for AI-generated citations.

Start from the charts workspace and open an existing chart. Depending on the view and chart state, you may review citations in table, claim, document, or PDF-oriented layouts, but the same core actions are available across the review experience.

Use whichever view helps you inspect the evidence most clearly. The underlying task stays the same: decide whether each citation should stay, change, or be removed.

&AI assigns scores and colors to candidate citations so you can quickly understand which passages appear strongest.

Treat those colors as triage support, not as a substitute for legal judgment. When reviewing a citation, check:

The citation header and action controls expose direct review actions:

These actions let you move quickly through generated evidence without leaving the chart. For a new chart, a common pattern is to approve the strongest citations first, then reject or clean up the rest.

The review experience can also support bulk actions, such as approving or rejecting citations by score range or color. That is useful when a chart returns many suggestions and you want a quick first pass before closer manual review.

Not every useful citation needs to stay in the main evidence block. When a citation is helpful support but should not be the lead proof for that limitation, use the bookmark control to move it into secondary see also support. Use the same control again if you want to promote it back to primary.

Primary citations drive the chart score and control which figure evidence appears in export. Secondary citations stay attached to the limitation, collapse behind a compact summary in the chart UI, and export as shorter document-level support instead of full primary evidence blocks. If you need to tune how that secondary support reads in Word export, update the settings in Chart and export settings.

In claim review, you can move citations without leaving the chart.

If the cited passage is directionally right but the excerpt needs cleanup, use the edit-context action to adjust the surrounding text.

Use context editing when:

Editing context is often better than rejecting and regenerating when the evidence is already correct and only the presentation needs work.

When a citation needs explanation, concern flags, or handoff notes, add an annotation. Annotation controls are available directly from citation-level and chart-review surfaces.

Annotations are useful for:

As you review citations, it helps to separate the kinds of edits you are making.

Use this when the evidence is already strong and ready for the final chart.

Use this when the evidence is right but needs context edits, a clearer excerpt, or an annotation.

Use this when the evidence does not actually support the limitation or distracts from stronger support.

Use this when the limitation appears under-supported and the better next step is to update the chart rather than keep editing weak citations.

Edit the context or annotate the issue first if the source passage is still usable. If the underlying evidence is wrong, reject it and plan a rechart.

Start with bulk review by score or color, then revisit borderline citations individually.

That is usually a sign to move into the update workflow so &AI can search again with new instructions or a different scope.

After review, export the chart if citations are ready, continue refining if legal review is in progress, or rechart if the citation set needs a new pass.