Fact-check an AI answer claim by claim
Separate facts from advice, verify consequential claims against original sources and mark what you cannot confirm.
In brief
Do not fact-check an answer as one block. Extract the statements that can be wrong: dates, prices, version support, commands and policy conditions, then verify each against appropriate evidence.
This lets you keep useful explanations while correcting a single unsupported claim instead of accepting or rejecting everything.
Turn the answer into a short list of claims
Copy the answer into a working note and underline statements that can be checked: a product name, an exact date, a supported file format, a price or a command. Separate these from suggestions. “Try a smaller image” is advice; “the portal accepts WebP” is a factual condition that needs evidence.
Prioritise the claim that changes your next action. If a wrong statement could cost money, overwrite a file or expose an account, check it before spending time polishing the explanation.
Open the evidence and match its scope
Follow the citation and find the actual passage, not just a matching page title. Confirm the product, edition, platform and date. A Windows desktop instruction does not establish that the same menu exists on an iPhone, and a general pricing page may not describe your account’s plan.
If the link fails, do not count its presence as evidence. Search the original publisher for the document or mark the statement unverified. Two models repeating the same claim still leave you without a source.
Use a claim-and-evidence record
For a download recommendation, record three separate checks: whether the publisher supports your operating system, which file is intended for it and where its integrity information is published. You may confirm two and still need to pause on the third.
| Statement | Evidence needed | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| A setting exists on this device | Documentation for the platform and version | Use it only if the scope matches |
| An offer is still available | Current terms with dates and eligibility | Treat an old announcement as historical |
| A command is safe to run | Understanding of what the command changes | Do not run it merely to test the claim |
Revise the answer without inventing certainty
Ask for a revised draft that uses only the confirmed statements and labels anything unresolved. Compare that draft with your notes. A more fluent rewrite can quietly introduce a new unsupported date or guarantee. For important work, keep the source URLs and the date you checked them so a later reader can repeat the check.
For calculations, apply the same evidence check to a small test sheet. Check an AI-written Excel formula before using it
Before you act
Two models agreeing does not make them independent evidence. A citation can be invented, outdated or about a different product.
What to do next
- List the answer’s consequential factual claims.
- Open the original documentation or announcement for each and check date and scope.
- Correct, qualify or remove unsupported claims, preserving clear notes of what remains unknown.
