arXiv: Beyond the Editing Canvas: Evidence Divergence in OOXML-to-LLM Ingestion

AI Analysis

A new technical paper, titled Beyond the Editing Canvas: Evidence Divergence in OOXML-to-LLM Ingestion, has been published on arXiv. The research identifies a critical data integrity risk when large language models process documents saved in Office Open XML format, the standard behind modern Word, Excel, and PowerPoint files. The paper demonstrates that hidden metadata, revision history, and embedded objects can be altered or lost during conversion into text for AI analysis, leading to what the authors call evidence divergence. This means the AI’s output may not accurately reflect the original document’s full content or provenance.

This finding directly affects any organization using LLMs for regulatory reporting, contract review, audit evidence, or e-discovery, particularly in finance, legal services, healthcare, and public administration. Compliance teams that rely on AI to summarise or extract data from OOXML files must now treat such outputs as potentially incomplete or misleading for formal record-keeping. The risk is not just technical but legal, as it could undermine the defensibility of decisions based on AI-generated summaries.

Compliance teams should immediately inventory all workflows where LLMs ingest OOXML files and flag any output used for regulatory submissions or dispute resolution. Next, they should require a human verification step for any AI-generated summary of such documents, and consider using a controlled conversion pipeline that preserves all metadata and tracks changes. Finally, update your AI governance policy to include a specific risk note on OOXML ingestion, and request that vendors confirm whether their models handle embedded revision data correctly. Treat this as a data provenance issue, not a simple formatting quirk.