The research question
A contract term appears in the original agreement, a CRM export and a monthly report copied from that export. Three documents seem to confirm the same value, but they may all derive from one source. Counting them as three independent confirmations can exaggerate confidence and obscure the fact that a single extraction mistake propagated through the organization’s records. Provenance research distinguishes contributing data from its source locations. In a document-derived CRM, both help a reviewer understand how a conclusion was formed and inspect the particular evidence on which it depends.
A concrete design choice
The proposed evidence model retains derivation relationships where they are known. A review can show several useful locations for a statement while distinguishing independent observations from downstream copies. If independence is unknown, the system should say so rather than assuming it. Contradictory evidence from a separate source deserves attention even when many copies repeat the original value. The design should preserve the chain that explains how the statement moved through systems, because that chain can identify which records need reconsideration when the underlying source changes or proves incorrect.
What would demonstrate usefulness
Create a test with one source copied into several exports and a separate document that challenges it. Check whether reviewers can see the dependence and avoid majority-vote reasoning based on file count. Measure explanation quality and correction scope instead of rewarding the system for accumulating redundant supporting links.