The method
- Choose a narrow question and copy only statements answering it directly. Number claims about identity, dates, quantities, rules or causal relationships. Distinguish drafting suggestions from assertions about the world; they require different kinds of checking.
- Find a document establishing each precise point, rather than stopping at an organization’s name. Open the relevant passage and record what it actually supports. A source discussing the topic does not establish every sentence in the answer.
- Mark rows as supported, contradicted, unestablished or outside scope. Rewrite your synthesis using the table and retain visible uncertainty. Do not upload a confidential personal file to the service merely to ask it to validate its own response.
Fictional worked example
A fictional assistant supplies three dates and an explanation. Your documents establish one date, contradict another and say nothing about the third. The table preserves these separate states; the explanation remains open until relevant material is found. Finding one source does not validate the answer as a whole.
The record to keep
Keep the question, initial answer, documentary passages and row-by-row conclusion. This record lets you repeat the checks when the text or sources change.
Your record, step by step
For your own situation, record the following information. Check a field when it is documented; missing information still needs verification. The boxes are a reminder within this page.
This checklist does not validate your project. No entries are sent or saved.
Fictional worked case. A fictional AI answer mixes a number, an attribution and a proposed method. Examine each separately.
| Element | Observation in the case | Interpretation or next check |
|---|---|---|
| Number | “42%” with no period or population | Do not reuse the value while scope is missing |
| Attribution | Organisation named without a precise document | Find the text actually published by that organisation |
| Link | Opened source lacks the claimed sentence | Record the mismatch rather than treating a link as proof |
| Method | Sequence of steps suggested by the assistant | Separate it from an observed or measured result |
What this method can establish
The grid records checks rather than guaranteeing truth. An unavailable reference remains unestablished. Medical, legal or financial decisions require suitable context and an appropriate professional.
Useful questions before you start
Does a working link validate the nearby claim?
No. Check that the passage supports the exact fact with the same date, unit and scope. An active link can be irrelevant.
Does an unavailable reference mean that the claim is false?
No. Mark it as unestablished and look for the title, author, publisher or an identifiable archived version. While the document and passage remain inaccessible, do not describe them as consulted. A documented contradiction and missing evidence are different conclusions.
Do two assistants giving the same answer provide two independent pieces of evidence?
Not by themselves. They may repeat the same sources or the same error. Compare the original documents and the passages supporting each claim. Agreement between answers can suggest a research lead; it does not replace documentary checking.
Supporting documentation
These references support the method. Each source shows its language and consultation date; an available directory record explains its purpose.
- UNESCO — Guidance for generative AI EN ↗
Documentation consulted on
An editorial method, a fictional example and references for further reading.