Understanding fine-grained links between documents is crucial for many applications, yet progress is limited by the lack of efficient methods for for data curation. To address this limitation, we introduce a domain-agnostic framework for bootstrapping sentence-level cross-document links from scratch. Our approach (1) generates and validates semi-synthetic datasets of linked documents, (2) uses these datasets to benchmark and shortlist the best-performing linking approaches, and (3) applies the shortlisted methods in large-scale human-in-the-loop annotation of natural text pairs. We apply the framework in two distinct domains – peer review and news – and show that combining retrieval models with LLMs achieves a 73% human approval rate for suggested links, more than doubling the acceptance of strong retrievers alone. Our framework allows users to produce novel datasets that enable systematic study of cross-document understanding, supporting downstream tasks such as media framing analysis and peer review assessment. All code, data, and annotation protocols are released to facilitate future research.

Attribution and fact verification are critical challenges in natural language processing for assessing information reliability. While automated systems and Large Language Models (LLMs) aim to retrieve and select concise evidence to support or refute claims, they often present users with either insufficient or overly redundant information, leading to inefficient and error-prone verification. To address this, we propose Evidence Ranking, a novel task that prioritizes presenting sufficient information as early as possible in a ranked list. This minimizes user reading effort while still making all available evidence accessible for sequential verification. We compare two approaches for the new ranking task: one-shot ranking and incremental ranking. We introduce a new evaluation framework, inspired by information retrieval metrics, and construct a unified benchmark by aggregating existing fact verification datasets. Extensive experiments with diverse models show that incremental ranking strategies better capture complementary evidence and that LLM-based methods outperform shallower baselines, while still facing challenges in balancing sufficiency and redundancy. Compared to evidence selection, we conduct a controlled user study and demonstrate that evidence ranking both reduces reading effort and improves verification. This work provides a foundational step toward more interpretable, efficient, and user-aligned information verification systems.