Gullibility. Without reading the paper you pretend the LLM is 100% correct.
Seriously though. My aim would be that I understand the paper. Its not one query where the LLM tells me something, its an iterative process. So the failure mode, for the LLM to be incorrect here, its not that easy to stumble upon. And there are opportunities for this to be corrected later.
Correction only matters only in the hypothetical where the LLM has already produced an output that mischaracterizes the original content. What gives you confidence that correction n+1 is different? Given that susceptibility to error is assumed, without reference to the original, the best assurance you can have is that subsequent outputs no longer contradict. But this gives no certainty that it has converged on an accurate characterization.