Purpose
Use this lesson to verify claims, quotes, and citations before publishing. The aim is to produce work that a colleague can review and act on, not merely text that sounds convincing.
Lesson Explanation
Scenario: A draft article contains three statistics with links.
Better instruction: Create a verification table with each claim, the linked source, publication date, whether the source directly supports the claim, and a publish/hold decision.
A link is not proof that a claim is supported. Check the original source, date, scope, and wording. Ask the AI to organize a verification table, but open the sources yourself before approving publication. Each statistic has a direct source check and a publish or hold decision.
Work in a short cycle: provide the relevant input, state the result and limits, inspect the draft against the acceptance criteria, then revise the instruction when a requirement is missing. Keep the final human decision with the person responsible for the work.
Practice Questions
-
A draft article includes a statistic with a working link attached. Does this lesson say the presence of a link is enough to trust the claim?
View Answer
No – a link is not proof that a claim is supported; the source itself needs to be checked.
-
What four things does this lesson say should be checked about a source, beyond whether the link works?
View Answer
The original source, date, scope, and wording.
-
Write a prompt for building a verification table for three statistics in a draft report, following this lesson’s guidance.
View Answer
Something like: “Create a verification table with each claim, the linked source, publication date, whether the source directly supports the claim, and a publish/hold decision.”
-
A verification table is generated listing claims and sources, but no one actually opens the source links before the article is published. What does this lesson say about this practice?
View Answer
You should open the sources yourself before approving publication – the AI can organize the table, but verification is a human step.
-
A cited source discusses a related but different topic than the specific claim it’s attached to. What does this lesson call this kind of mismatch?
View Answer
The source not directly supporting the claim – checking scope and wording specifically catches this kind of mismatch.
-
A completed verification table lists each statistic, its source, the publication date, whether it directly supports the claim, and a publish/hold decision. What does this reflect?
View Answer
A complete verification process following this lesson’s full guidance.
-
Why does this lesson specifically caution against treating “a link” as proof of a supported claim?
View Answer
A link can be present but broken, outdated, or discussing something different from the specific claim it’s attached to – the actual content needs to be checked, not just the presence of a citation.
-
A source supporting a specific statistic is five years old, and the underlying situation has likely changed since then. What element of source-checking does this lesson’s guidance address?
View Answer
Checking the date.
-
Why does this lesson say the AI can help organize a verification table but shouldn’t replace opening the sources yourself?
View Answer
Organizing claims into a structured format is a task the AI can assist with, but actually confirming a source supports a claim requires human judgment and direct verification.
-
A claim is marked “hold” in a verification table because its source, upon checking, discusses a different time period than the one referenced in the article. What principle does this reflect?
View Answer
Checking the scope of the source, not just its existence, before making a publish decision.
-
A verification table shows one claim marked “publish” and two marked “hold” pending further research. What does this reflect about the review process?
View Answer
A genuine human verification step, distinguishing which claims are actually confirmed versus which still need more support before publication.
-
Why might checking “wording” specifically matter, beyond just confirming a source exists and is on-topic?
View Answer
A source might discuss the general topic but use different, more qualified language than the confident claim being made, meaning the claim overstates what the source actually says.