Synthetic post-training pipelines commonly filter generated samples with reward models or holistic LLM judges, often relying on two assumptions: that a sample’s faithfulness can be judged without the exact source that produced it, and that rejected samples can be discarded rather than systematically recovered. We present a controlled study of both assumptions across gate configurations, recovery strategies, and generator scales, using adversarially injected corpora to provide ground-truth failure labels. We find that grounding faithfulness judgments in the exact source evidence improves over post-hoc retrieval for stronger judges and substantially outperforms reward-only filtering; hallucination and reward gates reject largely distinct sample populations supporting the need for both; and adaptive recovery, which diagnoses failures before repairing them, achieves higher yield and recovery rate than naive regeneration. Downstream fine-tuning quality is driven primarily by generator scale, with filtering and recovery providing their clearest gains when smaller generators are used. We release our evaluation corpus and experimental configurations to support reproducible pipeline design.

Peer review relies on substantive, evidence-based questions, yet current LLMs generate surface-level queries that perform worse than human reviewer questions in expert evaluation. To address this gap, we curate a high-quality dataset of reviewer questions from OpenReview and conduct a human preference study where expert annotators evaluate question-paper pairs across three dimensions: effort, evidence, and grounding. From these annotations, we train IntelliReward, a reward model built from a frozen autoregressive LLM with trainable multi-head transformers. Validated against expert judgments, IntelliReward predicts reviewer-question quality better than API-based SFT baselines and provides scalable evaluation. We apply Decoupled Clip and Dynamic Sampling Policy Optimization (DAPO) with IntelliReward to train IntelliAsk, a question-generation model aligned with human standards of effortful, evidence-based critique. Human evaluations show IntelliAsk generates more grounded, substantive and effortful questions than strong baselines and reduces reliance on first-page content. We also find improvements on reasoning and writing benchmarks, suggesting reviewer-question quality correlates with broader capabilities. Compared to Qwen3-32B, IntelliAsk improves MuSR (68.3 vs 64.7 Acc) and WritingBench (8.31 vs 8.07). We release our code, filtered review dataset, expert annotations, IntelliAsk and IntelliReward to support automatic evaluation of grounding, effort, and evidence in LLM-generated review questions.