Reading your verification report

Every full draft job produces a draft plus a verification report. The report is written for your team's internal review, not for USCIS or IRCC and not for the client. Nothing in it gets filed.

Citation verification runs after drafting and checks every material claim the draft made against your actual exhibits: does the cited exhibit exist, does the quote or paraphrase attributed to it actually appear there, and does it support the specific point the draft is using it for. Every checked claim gets an internal severity, but the document you download does not list them all. It shows only what is still open after redraft: a claim marked ● needs correction, or one marked ▲ review recommended. A claim that checked out clean is not shown at all, so the report you are reading is a punch list of what still needs your attention, not a full audit trail of every citation in the draft.

Each open issue lists the claim, then a Why line explaining what verification actually found (missing exhibit, a quote that does not appear where cited, or a claim no uploaded exhibit backs), and where a specific fix is available, an Optional fix line with concrete replacement text. The list is capped at the ten most material open issues rather than everything at once, and it reads as a flat list in the order verification found them, not broken out section by section. A separate Criteria suggestions section below it, present when applicable, flags rubric-level gaps at the criterion level rather than individual citations, a different check from citation matching. A footer legend on every page reminds you what ● and ▲ mean so the list reads at a glance.

A cluster of open issues on one criterion is usually a signal about your exhibit record for that criterion, not a flaw in the drafting itself. Often the fix is a stronger or more specific exhibit, not a rewritten sentence. If an issue has no Optional fix line, verification found a real problem but nothing in your uploaded record actually resolves it. That is your team's judgment call, not something Petria can safely paper over with a suggested rewrite.

Redraft runs automatically after verification on every full job and fixes what it flagged where a fix is possible from the existing record, so the draft you actually download has already absorbed that pass. The verification report you are reading reflects what redraft could and could not resolve, not the first, unedited draft. On Pro and Enterprise, a separate pre-filing gap analysis looks at rubric-level risk across the whole record, a different question from whether a citation holds up. Read the two together rather than treating either as a substitute for the other.

Fix any remaining gaps before filing when you can. Some gaps are genuine judgment calls a partner may knowingly accept, for instance when the underlying evidence simply is not available and the argument is being made on the strength of what is. Treat the report as a checklist for your team's review, not a final legal opinion or a guarantee of adjudication outcome. USCIS and IRCC officers make that call, not Petria.