Two checks, two possible failures
An argument can move neatly from a mistaken starting point to a mistaken conclusion. Its reasoning may preserve what the premises say while the premises themselves fail. This is why checking a chain of reasoning and checking its factual inputs are separate jobs.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines a valid argument through the absence of an interpretation in which all its premises are true and its conclusion is false. The Open University's teaching materials add the familiar distinction: an argument is sound when it is valid and its premises are true.
An invented example
Suppose the premises say that every record bearing a blue stamp has been independently reviewed, and that a particular page bears a blue stamp. The conclusion that the page has been independently reviewed follows from those premises. The argument's form works even if the first premise is an invented rule and no review took place.
Now reverse the inference: every reviewed record has a blue stamp; this record has a blue stamp; therefore it was reviewed. The premises allow other blue-stamped records. The conclusion is no longer guaranteed. The two examples fail in different places, so a useful critique should say which problem it found.
Apply it to a research answer
A useful audit sets out three things: the source claim, the rule connecting it to the conclusion, and the conclusion itself. Check the source claim, then ask whether the rule permits the inference. Flawless grammar can otherwise conceal a false premise. This is an application of the logical distinction; the underlying evidence still needs checking.