The one profession where this already has a case list.

What has actually happened

Thousands of decisions now exist in which a court found that a filing relied on material a model invented. Penalties have moved from four-figure fines to five-figure sanctions and the first bar suspensions.1 Practicing lawyers, not only self-represented litigants, account for hundreds of the entries.

The figures, with sources, are set out separately. What matters here is why it kept happening to firms that were being careful.

Why the usual safeguards did not hold

Firms did not adopt these tools carelessly. Most put a verification step in the workflow: an associate checks the citations before filing. The step failed for a reason that has nothing to do with diligence.

A fabricated citation from a competent model is not obviously wrong. Plausible case name, plausible reporter, plausible year, and it stands for exactly the proposition the brief needs. It looks like the citation you were hoping to find. Checking it means pulling the authority, which is the labor the tool was bought to eliminate. Under deadline, on the twentieth citation, the check gets lighter.

What a court asks

When a citation is challenged, nobody is interested in the confidence score of the model that produced it. The question is where the proposition came from and whether the source says what the filing claims it says. That is a question about provenance, and the only satisfying answer is the passage itself.

An answer you can trace to a passage is an answer you can defend. An answer you have to re-derive is a research task you have already paid for once.

Where CiteOnly fits

CiteOnly is for the part of legal work where the answer already exists in the material and the job is to find it and stand behind it: reading a contract with its amendments, answering a question about a filing or a transcript, pulling every obligation of a given type out of an agreement.

It is not for drafting. Check the published limits before assuming it covers a workflow.