Well.
> Case is in a bar called the Chatsubo, a place for professional expatriates. He is talking to the bartender, Ratz, who has a prosthetic arm. Ratz and Case joke around and then a prostitute who was sitting next to Case leaves. Suddenly, a drunken Australian starts talking about how the Chinese invented nerve-splicing. This causes Case to become bitter and he expresses his feelings to his glass. This passage paints a vivid picture of the atmosphere in the bar and the characters that inhabit it. The interesting detail is that Ratz has a prosthetic arm, which is a unique detail that adds to the atmosphere of the bar
The results are interesting. The in-production use-case, where the tech will be most reliable, not evident.
Edit:
It seems (also seeing the "Key moments" section) that elemental attempts to understand the details (and structure) of the text should output reliability values, and employ them with importance towards the final output.
Edit2:
It seems from further tests that the "understanding" may be very limited, and that the "trick" is more in terms of "trying to identify salient parts and present them reformulated - without attempting to understand them".
Edit3:
It seems that the attempt of identification of salient points is confirmed as a main mechanism - but, in absence of understanding, the re-formulation just degrades information. For example: the original being, «Bronze is the first metal that gets its own age, which began around 3300 BCE in Mesopotamia. Other metals were certainly in use before it — especially copper — but the addition of a small amount of tin to existing copper technology changed everything. Bronze was a step up in hardness, durability, and resistance to corrosion [...]», the summary «Bronze is the first metal to have its own age, beginning around 3300 BCE in Mesopotamia. It was a step up in hardness, durability, and resistance to corrosion» betrays faults in changing the initial 'gets' to 'have', and in missing that those qualities of bronze are there in comparison to copper.
--
...I see we have a sniper here, as so common: well, do not forget to make your criticism explicit (assuming it will just take its time to elaborate). Edit: still need more time?