* **None**: As a lower bound, we evaluate the faithfulness of claims without any evidence from the book. * **Human evidence**: We can also use human-annotated evidence from Fables obtained via the pipeline described in SS2. This evidence is always related to the claim, but it often takes the form of short, highly-contextual spans that may or may not be sufficient to support claim verification. * **BM25 retrieval**: We employ BM25 (Robertson et al., 1995) to retrieve passages from the book using the claim as a query. We concatenate the \(k\) most relevant passages to use as evidence for our evaluation prompt. We set \(k=5\) and chunk passages up to 256 tokens. See SS4 for performance changes when varying passage length. * **Entire book (EB)**: Retrieval is especially challenging in our setting due to the complexity of both the query and document. Intuitively, long-context LLMs can bypass explicit retrieval by simply fitting the entire book into the context as evidence. This setting resembles "needle-in-the-haystack" evaluations of prior work (Kamradt, 2023; Levy et al., 2024), except that it tests a much deeper understanding of the input document.