Every sentence in a summary can be accurate while the summary still distorts the original. Selection is itself interpretive. I look not only for false additions but also for omissions that change meaning.
Has a condition disappeared?
A recommendation may apply to a particular team size or resource level. Retaining the recommendation without that condition turns a bounded idea into a general rule.
In an illustrative research note, removing observed in a small sample makes the result appear stronger. Fewer words have produced greater certainty. That is an editorial change, not neutral compression.
Is the limitation still visible?
If the original examines both benefits and constraints, the summary should not preserve only the benefits. An unresolved issue may matter more to a decision-maker than the closing sentence.
I check whether selection has amplified one viewpoint beyond the source’s own treatment. Faithful balance means retaining the relationships in the argument, not mechanically giving every opinion equal space.
Different purposes need different summaries
Presenting options to a decision-maker differs from introducing a subject to a new editor. The former may emphasise trade-offs, the latter definitions. A clear brief identifies who needs the summary and for what task.
Purposeful selection still does not permit unsupported additions. Summary and interpretation should remain distinguishable so readers know when they are encountering the source and when an editor is drawing an inference.
Run a reverse check
I consider which decision someone might make after reading the summary, then return to the original to see whether it supports that decision. The gap can reveal which condition needs restoring.
A good summary is not necessarily the shortest version. It is a more usable version that preserves the distinctions needed to understand the subject.