Missing entries don’t get corrected by looking at the LLM output. That only helps when the LLM makes something up from thin air or mangles the output.

Of course it’s not the kind of question you can get an objectively correct answer for, but you could come up with the correct answer for a given methodology.

Isn't verifying sources a much harder problem than just searching the list of works in the first place?

Especially in cases such as this. For well known works of literature and music structured data exists already.

Do extra work in step 2 because you got lazy in step 1 is not my idea of efficient or complete.

It’s a long way from got lazy to didn’t write their own Internet scraper to scan for books, author’s age and opinions.

that depends how much more quickly and efficiently you can do the extra work in step 2 than in step 1.

In this case it’s strictly less efficient.

You can only correct for missing entries by doing the same work you’d need to start from scratch. But after that you now have a second list to consider.