I'm betting "cite your sources" is how an AI tool beats the ChatGPT-wrapper problem. Here's the playbook (and my doubt).

Building in public, pre-revenue. Like half of us here, I built an AI tool (Clausio — it drafts freelance contracts and NDAs) and instantly hit the "this is just a GPT wrapper" wall. I was honestly scared it basically was one. Here's the bet I'm making to climb out, in case it's useful for anyone building AI in a trust-heavy niche.

The playbook — make the model show its work:

1. Don't let the model free-generate the high-stakes part. I hand-built a citation-checked corpus of US statutes + case law, and the AI maps onto it instead of inventing. Slower to build, but the output isn't vibes.

2. Put the source on every output. Each drafted clause ships with the verified statute behind it (IP ownership → 17 U.S.C. §204(a); NDA whistleblower notice → 18 U.S.C. §1833(b)) and a flag for anything missing. The citation IS the product, not a footnote.

3. Sell the gap, not the generation. A free chatbot will happily write you a contract. What it won't reliably tell you is what's missing, or why it matters, with a source. That gap is the whole wedge.

My honest doubt: from the inside I genuinely can't tell whether "here's the exact statute" builds trust, or whether normal users just see noise and bounce. For anyone who's shipped AI in a regulated or trust-heavy space — did showing your sources actually move conversion, or did users not care?

(It's live if it's useful as a reference — clausio-49j.pages.dev. Drafting tool, not a law firm; not legal advice.)