Affiliate disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Shopping buttons open Amazon.com searches; check the exact item and regional delivery before buying.
Prepared with AI assistance. Practical examples are illustrative, not hands-on test results. The featured image is an AI-generated editorial illustration of generic equipment, not an exact branded product photograph.
Quick answer: Extract the three most important claims, verify each against a current primary source, and check whether the answer omitted a condition that changes the conclusion.
You do not need to investigate every sentence equally. Focus verification on the claims that drive a decision or could cause harm if wrong.
Worked example: check an AI answer before acting
Illustrative exercise: imagine an AI assistant says, “The fictional Northstar Notes plan costs 12 per user per month, includes unlimited exports, and will save your five-person team 40% compared with your current 100-per-month plan.” These are three separate claims. A convincing paragraph is not evidence for any of them.
| Claim | What to check | What would change your decision? |
|---|---|---|
| 12 per user per month | Find the current vendor pricing page. Match currency, region, billing period, minimum seats and taxes. | A monthly equivalent may require an annual commitment. Record that condition. |
| Unlimited exports | Read the export documentation for the exact plan, format and account type. | Exporting text may exclude attachments, comments or version history. Test a sample you can afford to lose. |
| 40% saving | Recalculate the stated comparison: 12 × 5 = 60 per month; (100 − 60) ÷ 100 = 40%. | The arithmetic works under these assumptions. Migration costs, different features or a different billing basis could make the comparison unsuitable. |
Example verdict: “The saving calculation is correct if the quoted price applies to all five seats. Price and export coverage remain unverified until the relevant vendor pages and a sample export confirm them.” This is more useful than marking the whole answer true or false.
A copyable claim log
For each important claim, record: exact claim → original source URL → relevant passage → date checked → scope or conditions → verdict → next action. Use verdicts such as supported, contradicted or unresolved. An unresolved claim is a reason to pause that part of the decision, not to invent a replacement fact.
When five minutes is not enough
The time limit is a triage method. Stop and investigate further when sources disagree, the original material is unavailable, or an answer could affect a consequential decision. If you cannot trace the source, remove the claim from the material you plan to share or label the uncertainty clearly.
What matters most
- Prioritize consequential claims
- Search exact names and numbers
- Check the source date
- Recalculate important figures
A practical step-by-step approach
1. Mark key claims
Highlight the facts that support the main recommendation.
2. Find primary sources
Prefer official documentation, filings, research papers and direct announcements.
3. Check recency
Make sure the source applies to the current version, country or period.
4. Recompute numbers
Use a calculator or spreadsheet rather than trusting generated arithmetic.
5. Look for omitted conditions
Ask what would make the advice wrong or inapplicable.
Try it in practice
Check a number and its context
Suppose a draft says a subscription costs 20 per month and 200 per year. Multiplying 20 by 12 gives 240; the annual figure may reflect a discount, a different currency or an error. Open the actual pricing page and identify which condition explains the difference.
Illustrative exercise, not a measured test result.
What to check before you decide
Evaluate claims by authority, independence, freshness, specificity and whether another reliable source reaches the same conclusion.
- Original source
- Matching context
- Current date
- Reproducible math
- Known uncertainty
Common mistakes to avoid
- Checking only the easiest claim
- Accepting a citation without opening it
- Ignoring geographic differences
- Treating confidence as evidence
A question worth asking
What if five minutes is not enough?
Treat five minutes as triage, not a guarantee. Pause publication or the decision when an important claim remains unverified.
Check the claim, not just whether the citation exists
A credible document can still be used to support an overbroad sentence. Split a compound claim into smaller statements, open each supporting passage and preserve dates, eligibility conditions and exceptions.
Illustrative example: “This feature is available to all teams” is not supported by a source describing a pilot for one department. The repair is to identify the pilot group, not simply attach another reference.
For longer research, use the seven-check citation audit and claim ledger. Record supported, partly supported, contradicted or not established beside each important claim. When an assistant collects the evidence through websites, use the browser-agent test checklist to check missing facts and final-state evidence too.
Your next step
A short verification pass can expose important errors, but it is not a guarantee. If evidence is unavailable, state the uncertainty and pause any consequential decision.
Further reading
For additional guidance and context, consult NIST: AI Risk Management Framework. Check how the guidance applies to your organisation, country and specific task.