More Criticism Does Not Make a Better Review: EquiReview-R

arXiv:2609.03943v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI reviewers can now produce many specific criticisms, but more criticism is not necessarily a better review.

A review may miss a consequential weakness or retain an allegation that available evidence does not support. These failures require opposite corrections, yet generation-oriented systems and aggregate measures obscure the distinction.

We therefore recast AI-assisted review as evidence-guided refinement of a structured concern set, with omission and overcritique treated as separate risks. Building on this formulation, we introduce EquiReview-R, which resolves existing concerns against localized evidence, searches for missing issues from independent and review-conditioned perspectives, and returns stop, continue, or defer.

To expose the failure mode that motivates this design, we construct an evidence-linked trajectory corpus. Its retrospective analysis shows why revision must precede further search: nearly all concerns in a high-recall review lack a definitive evidential disposition, while an earlier refinement mechanism cannot revise them.

On a frozen cohort of previously unseen papers, EquiReview-R satisfies the prespecified non-inferiority criterion for major omission, reduces major overcritique from 15.5% to 8.1%, and attains a one-sided omission upper bound of 9.9% while stopping on 52.4% of papers. Computation-matched controls, controlled pairs, and ablations show that the gain comes from revision rather than extra inference or shorter output.

We release the corpus as ReviewTrace, an evidence-linked resource for studying review revision, disagreement, and provenance.