Extract the material claims into a ledger, inspect their original sources, and record whether the source supports the wording and scope. Revise or remove unsupported claims before approving the draft.
In this guide
What does a completed claim ledger show?
S1 is an authored source note used to teach claim checking, not a published study. For a real draft, save the passage location and a direct source URL beside the correction. A review model may spot an overstatement, but the editor still needs to open the original. Keep style edits in a separate column so they do not distract from factual scope.
| Draft claim | Practice source | Decision / replacement |
|---|---|---|
| Every customer will finish faster. | S1: pilot participants completed a task after guided training; no timing comparison supplied | Remove universal and speed claim |
| Pilot participants completed the task after guided training. | S1: same population and condition | Supported within this exercise |
| The method saves 20%. | No source or baseline supplied | Omit until the metric and evidence exist |
How do you verify a claim against its source?
- Open the cited page and confirm the publisher, document title, and relevant edition or date.
- Locate the passage or table that supports the statement. Read the surrounding conditions rather than searching for one matching phrase.
- Compare the subject, population or product, quantities, period, and certainty of the draft with the source.
- For a direct quotation, compare the words and retain the exact source URL beside it. For a paraphrase, check that its meaning has not become stronger.
- Record supported, revise, or unresolved in the ledger. Make the revision in the draft and recheck the changed sentence before approval.
What if the source is missing or conflicts?
If two primary pages disagree, preserve both versions and their dates. Ask which applies to the product, region, or reporting period in the article. Do not average eligibility rules or choose the more attractive price to make a paragraph read smoothly.
For a long report, verify tables and footnotes together. A figure can be accurate but belong to another year or denominator. Keep the checked source pack with the draft so the next editor does not have to reconstruct your reasoning.
Separate material claims from ordinary explanation
Start with the statements a reader could rely on: product capabilities, prices, eligibility, measured outcomes, dates, and quotations. Give each an ID and a source field. Your own recommendation can be labeled as a recommendation, with the observations that informed it, rather than presented as something the cited author proved.
Keep the source title and publisher as well as the URL. A link can resolve successfully while leading to a different edition or a related page. If the page requires access you do not have, mark verification pending and look for an accessible primary source supporting a narrower statement.
Use AI to organize the review, then inspect the evidence
Create a claim ledger from this DRAFT: [paste]. SOURCES AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW: [titles, URLs, relevant passages] For each material factual claim, return its text, proposed source, location, conditions, and a review question. Distinguish a direct quote from a paraphrase or editorial judgment. Mark unsupported or inaccessible evidence as unresolved. Do not manufacture a publication, page number, author, or source passage. I will open sources and decide the final status.
Make verification visible in the handoff
Give the publisher a clean draft and a separate list of remaining decisions. An unresolved claim should have a specific next step, such as opening a primary price page or asking for a dated specification. Approve the article when its material statements and limits can be defended from the saved evidence.