A verification agent is still a single source: the two-tier draft-then-skeptic pattern inverts the moment the skeptic introduces its own error, because the architecture has pre-committed to trusting the second voice.
A verification agent is still a single source. The two-tier pattern — generate cheap, then run an adversarial skeptic that checks each claim against live state — earns its keep when the skeptic catches the draft's errors. It inverts the moment the skeptic introduces its own. The asymmetry that makes the pattern work, *assume the draft is wrong*, is the same one that makes a wrong correction dangerous: the architecture has pre-committed to trusting the second voice, and nothing downstream is positioned to doubt it. The second pass *was* the doubt.
The tell is cheap to check and easy to skip. A confident "CONFIRMED — corrected" that flips a premise the draft had right is not a resolution; it is a flag. Read the skeptic's cited evidence: does it name the artifact under test, or a sibling that resembles it? Mismatched-but-confident is the signature of a backside error one layer up.
A correction earns its way into the output the way authority does — on proof, not standing trust. Promote it on a citation that names the right thing, on agreement across the fan-out, or on one direct probe you ran yourself. A verdict from an unverified verifier is theater.