Extract Claims From Every Page Element
Verification tests the exact claim. Confidence, polished language, and a working citation are not substitutes for supporting evidence.
Read the article for statements a reader could verify: prices, plan limits, feature access, dates, numerical comparisons, quotes, capabilities, and outcome claims. Break combined sentences into separate claims when they rely on different evidence.
Inspect compressed page elements too. A table entry marked included is a factual claim. A chart label can imply a measured result. A meta description can promise a benefit that the article does not substantiate. These elements need the same attention as body paragraphs.
Create a working record with claim, location, source, relevant evidence, review date, and disposition. Use clear statuses such as supported, needs qualification, outdated, or remove. Avoid a vague checked label when the issue has not actually been resolved.
Prioritize Claims by Consequence
Check decision-changing claims first. A missing refund restriction, wrong billing unit, or unsupported compatibility claim may materially affect the reader’s purchase. General background wording can wait until these issues are addressed.
Treat health, legal, financial, and safety claims with greater care and suitable expertise. A blog writer’s confidence is not evidence of competence in a consequential field. If your publication cannot support the claim properly, do not include it as advice.
Also prioritize facts likely to change. Prices, plan access, product versions, and offer terms need a current reference. Keep the relevant date and market context attached so the next editor knows exactly what was verified.
Find Evidence at the Original Source
Prefer current primary sources for product facts: official pricing pages, support documentation, release notes, and technical references. For a scientific claim, inspect the actual study and its scope rather than relying on a summary that may omit limitations.
Follow citations all the way to the supporting evidence. A real article URL is not enough if it does not contain the claimed fact. A search-result snippet can help locate a page, but it should not replace reading the relevant material.
If sources disagree, inspect dates, versions, geography, and definitions. An older support article may describe a previous product plan. Do not blend conflicting details into a confident sentence unless you can establish which applies to the reader’s situation.
| Claim Type | Evidence to Check | Typical Correction |
|---|---|---|
| Plan price | Current official terms | Fix currency and billing period |
| Feature access | Current documentation and tier | Restore the restriction |
| Numerical example | Inputs and independent arithmetic | Label assumptions and rounding |
| Outcome claim | Appropriate direct evidence | Remove unsupported promise |
| Recommendation | Supported criteria and reader scenario | Label the editorial judgment |
- 01Extract material claims
- 02Rank the review priority
- 03Read original evidence
- 04Check scope and arithmetic
- 05Resolve and record the result
Editorial process diagram. The sequence explains decisions; it is not a performance rating.
Check Wording, Scope, and Dates
Compare the exact wording with the source. Includes, supports, can integrate, and is available on request are different claims. Preserve restrictions about plan, country, billing period, version, or required setup.
Be careful with merchant outcome language. A capability description or case study does not establish that every user will achieve the same result. Explain what the product does and separate that from your editorial assessment of who may find it useful.
Check the conclusion last against the accepted evidence. A recommendation may be reasonable even when it is an inference, but it should state the relevant user scenario. Avoid presenting an editorial fit judgment as a measured universal superiority claim.
Recalculate Figures and Inspect Citations
Recalculate numerical examples independently. Write down inputs, units, formula, and rounding. Distinguish a monthly price from an annual monthly equivalent, and a theoretical generation count from a promise of publishable articles.
For charts, verify every value and label, use a meaningful shared scale, and retain a text or table equivalent. Do not invent percentages or scores to make a comparison more visual. A labeled process graph can be useful when no numerical dataset exists.
Inspect citations after editing. A paragraph may have moved, a claim may have changed, or the source link may have been attached to the wrong sentence. The editing guide explains how to preserve qualifications during revision.
Resolve Uncertainty Before Publishing
If a claim remains unsupported, remove it, narrow it to what is supported, or describe the uncertainty clearly. Asking another AI to agree is not independent verification. It may repeat the same unsupported statement in different words.
Keep illustrative examples visibly labeled. Their numbers or scenarios can explain a method without pretending to be observed results. Verify the calculation even when the input is hypothetical.
Finish with the actual page, not just the draft file. Check metadata, tables, images, schema, and links after conversion or CMS transfer. Record the final supported wording and source date so future updates can begin from the evidence rather than reconstructing it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can another AI verify a draft?
Another model can help identify suspicious claims, but agreement is not independent evidence. Verify against original documents or suitable primary sources.
What if no source supports a claim?
Remove it, qualify it, or explain the uncertainty specifically. Do not fill the gap with a plausible estimate that readers could mistake for a confirmed fact.
Do tables and metadata need checking?
Yes. Tables, captions, metadata, and structured data can contain material claims and lose qualifications when content is compressed.
Choose the Features That Fit Your Work
Verification tests the exact claim. Confidence, polished language, and a working citation are not substitutes for supporting evidence.
Explore Koala AI