Keeping human in the loop: A three-phase generative AI workflow for research integrity in data-intensive science.A methodological case study using elite Ethiopian distance-running data

Background: Generative AI tools can support data-intensive research by writing code, drafting prose, searching analytical possibilities, and stress-testing claims. They can also produce false citations, drift between statistical specifications, and lose continuity across long investigations. This paper describes a practical workflow for using AI systems in empirical research while keeping discovery, verification, and accountability inspectable. Methods: We developed and applied a three-phase human-AI workflow to a case study of 14 elite Ethiopian distance runners. The dataset contained 22,605 GPS-segments collected across 97 consecutive days in late 2025, supplemented by venue and athlete metadata collected in the field. Phase 1 used an autonomous data-exploration tool to pre-filter the hypothesis space across five seeded research questions. Phase 2 used an AI system under direct human guidance to construct candidate findings into numerical claims, verification scripts, and draft text. Phase 3 used an independent AI system in an adversarial role to stress-test methods, statistics, prose, figures, and citations. The workflow was informed by Pearl's distinction between association, intervention, and counterfactual reasoning, with human judgement retained for research direction, interpretation, and final claims. Results: The workflow produced three empirical analyses and a documented correction process. The analyses estimated an altitude-to-sea-level pace correction of +0.10 min/km per 1,000 m at matched heart rate, showed why pooled altitude-surface regression was not identifiable within this venue system, documented method-dependence in heart-rate-based intensity classification, characterised within-venue route variation as a 64/36 path-fixed-to-trail-variable split with the Sululta label resolving into two functionally distinct sub-venues, and reframed the cohort's training through a 3x3x3 prescription lattice grounded in Ethiopian coaching practice. The adversarial phase identified several hallucinated citations, a terminology error between HC1 and cluster-robust standard errors, and several inconsistencies between prose, figures, and computed results. Verification scripts re-derived nearly all numerical claims from the cleaned lap-level data. Conclusions: The case study shows how researchers can organise AI-assisted empirical work so that candidate discovery, claim construction, independent stress-testing, and final accountability remain separated. The workflow did not remove the need for domain expertise or human judgement. Its value was in making the route from candidate finding to manuscript claim explicit, reproducible, and open to challenge. Trial registration: Not applicable.