QC Review

Even experienced review teams produce inconsistent results. Reviewers get fatigued, criteria shift mid-stream, and edge cases slip through. QC review exists to catch those gaps -- and Claira can help you do it faster and more systematically.

By re-evaluating documents against a clearly defined relevance criterion, Claira acts as a second set of eyes. You can compare its output to human coding decisions and quickly surface discrepancies worth investigating.

How Claira helps

• Structured re-evaluation. Claira applies the same prompt to every document, eliminating reviewer-to-reviewer variation in how criteria are interpreted.
• Surfaces discrepancies. When Claira's output disagrees with a reviewer's coding, that document is worth a second look -- it may reveal a misunderstanding of the protocol.
• Scales to full populations. You can QC-check an entire review set rather than relying on a small random sample.

When to use this

• After first-pass relevance review to validate coding consistency
• When onboarding new reviewers who may misapply criteria
• During or after review to identify borderline documents
• As part of a defensibility workflow to demonstrate review quality

Sample prompt

Adapt the criterion to match your actual review protocol. The more specific and concrete you make the criterion, the more consistent Claira's output will be.

Tips for better results

• Be explicit about what counts. "Discusses energy policy" is vague. "Discusses federal, state, or provincial legislation or regulation related to energy production, distribution, or carbon emissions" is better.
• Ask for a justification. Including a one-sentence reason helps you evaluate whether Claira understood the document or just pattern-matched on keywords.
• Compare results against human coding. Export Claira's QC results alongside reviewer decisions and look for patterns in disagreement -- they often reveal protocol gaps.

Need help? Contact support@claira.to