A legal research tool must summarize case law opinions while preserving exact citation formats (e.g., "123 F.3d 456") without paraphrasing or altering them, even though the surrounding prose should be condensed. Which practice addresses this requirement?
- A. Allowing the model to paraphrase citations freely since exact formatting rarely matters in legal contexts
- B. Applying a post-processing step that reformats any citation-like text found in the generated summary, without instructing the summarization prompt to preserve citations verbatim
- C. Replacing summarization with translation, since translation never alters any text
- D. Instructing the summarization prompt to preserve citations verbatim while condensing surrounding explanatory text, as part of customizing the task for this domain✓ Correct
Explanation
Customizing the summarization instructions to explicitly preserve citation formatting verbatim while still condensing the surrounding prose directly addresses this domain-specific accuracy requirement. Option A is incorrect and risky — exact citation format is critical in legal research and must not be left to chance paraphrasing. Option C misunderstands the tools; translation converts language and does not perform condensation, so it does not meet the summarization goal. Option B is a right-idea-wrong-stage distractor: cleaning up citation formatting after generation can fix superficial spacing or punctuation, but it cannot recover a citation whose volume, reporter, or page number the model already altered or dropped during generation — preservation has to be instructed at the prompt stage, not patched afterward.