A convincing sentence can still lack evidence
A language model can invent a believable name, date, quote, explanation, or citation because the words fit its response. A confident tone, precise details, and links do not show that a source exists or supports the sentence.
NIST lists confidently stated false content and made-up citations as risks of generative AI. AP tells its journalists to treat generative-AI output as source material that has not been checked. Neither says every output is false. Both say to verify it outside the model.
A 2023 study by Walters and Wilder found made-up and incorrect references in the versions of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 they tested. This shows that the problem is real. It does not give a current or universal failure rate for every model, web-retrieval system, topic, or prompt.
List every claim you can check
First, read for claims rather than style. Mark facts stated directly and facts a normal reader would infer. Clearly say whose opinion you are reporting. Any checkable fact behind that opinion still needs evidence.
One exact statement, copied or restated without making it weaker.
What could happen if a reader trusts it?
What kind of source would be in a position to know?
Confirmed, limited, removed, unresolved, or sent to an expert.
Could cause serious harm
This includes health, safety, legal, financial, reputation, and eligibility claims, plus instructions people may follow. Ask a qualified expert when the meaning is beyond your skills.
Can go out of date
This includes prices, people who hold public office, schedules, rules, product features, availability, and live statistics. Record when you checked them.
Less likely to cause harm
This includes names, dates, titles, places, and background details. A quick check may be enough, but “low risk” does not mean “true.”
Go back to the source that could know
AI answer, search result, social post, article, or summary
Official record, full study, data behind it, direct transcript, or firsthand account
Wording limited to what the evidence shows
A primary or original source comes directly from the event, research, data, or person involved. It is not always neutral or enough on its own. Ask who made it, when and why they made it, what they could know, what is missing, and whether you have the full version. The Library of Congress advises readers to observe, reflect, ask questions, and investigate further.
Can you open the actual document or recording, not just another mention of it?
Did it come from the agency or organization in charge, original researcher, direct witness, or speaker?
Is it the version in force, or the latest version, for the time your sentence covers?
Do sources that seem to confirm the claim all repeat the same press release, post, dataset, or AI answer?
A real source may not support your exact claim
Read the source itself. Find the passage, table, or record that supports your exact claim. A source about the same general topic is not enough.
Check spelling, identity, role, organization, and the period in which the title applied.
Check whether each date marks the event, publication, update, your access, or when a rule took effect.
Check the unit, total used for comparison, place, time period, group counted or studied, and revisions. Make sure the draft correctly says count, rate, percentage, or percentage-point change.
Find the speaker's original words and read the surrounding context. Keep the meaning, name the right speaker, and include important limits. Otherwise, write an accurate summary without quote marks.
Check who or what was studied, the method, comparison, result, and limits. Do not turn a link between two things into proof that one caused the other.
Confirm the author, title, publisher or journal, year, DOI or other record number, and link. Most importantly, confirm the exact statement the source supports.
Find independent support when one source is not enough
Seek independent confirmation when needed
- The claim could cause serious harm, is disputed or surprising, or comes from an unnamed source or one with a stake in the issue.
- The original record is unclear, incomplete, unavailable, or conflicts with another trustworthy account.
- A report about an event needs accounts beyond one participant or document.
Two links are not two independent sources if both repeat the same original report. Not every routine fact needs two sources. Check more deeply when an error could cause more harm or when the evidence leaves more doubt.
Recheck what can change
- Open the official or firsthand source close to publication.
- Say “current as of” and give a date when the information may change.
- Use the date a rule took effect instead of an undated search snippet.
- Set a future review date for guidance you keep up to date.
A source can be real but out of date.
Checking a neighborhood pool notice
This is a hypothetical teaching example. The official notice is the supplied evidence, not a real-world claim.
Riverside Pool reopens Monday, July 6, and admission is free all summer. The pool's new director, Ana Ortiz, said the reopening follows a complete safety renovation.
“Riverside Community Pool reopens Tuesday, July 7. Admission is free July 7-12. Deck repairs are complete.” The notice names facilities manager Ana Ortiz, it contains no quotation.
- Date
Wrong. Change Monday, July 6 to Tuesday, July 7.
- Scope
Overstated. “July 7-12” does not support “all summer.”
- Name and role
The evidence names this person, but the draft gives her the wrong job title.
- Quote and cause
The notice has no direct quote. It says “deck repairs,” not “complete safety renovation.” Remove both claims.
Riverside Community Pool reopens Tuesday, July 7, after deck repairs. Admission is free from July 7 through July 12, according to the official notice.
Different questions require different evidence
Fact-checking
Question: Is the claim accurate, and does the source support it?
Needs: Evidence outside the draft and the AI that helped create it. Web search or retrieval can find sources, but you must open and check them.
Plagiarism or wording-match checks
Question: Does the wording resemble text in the material the tool can compare?
Limit: A match does not settle truth, permission, credit, or authorship. No match does not prove the writing is original.
AI review of its own work
Question: Can the model flag a possible conflict or list claims for you to check?
Limit: Its answer is only a lead. The same system saying it is correct is not independent proof.
Do not claim more than the evidence shows
Keep the claim. Clearly name the source when readers need to inspect it or tell it apart from other sources.
Narrow the claim, say who made it, and explain important limits. Do not use a vague word like “may” to hide the fact that you did not check it.
Remove the claim or hold it for later. Explain what remains unknown when that doubt matters to readers.
Ask a properly qualified person to review medical, legal, scientific, statistical, financial, safety, or technical meaning. A citation cannot replace expert knowledge.
For claims that could cause serious harm, save the claim, source link or file, supporting passage, access date, reviewer, and decision.
Fix errors quickly. Keep a correction record that says what was wrong, what changed, when it changed, and which source supports the fix. Clearly label a factual correction instead of quietly calling it an update.
Six steps from draft to checked evidence
- 01
Identify
Mark every statement or implied fact you can check.
- 02
Prioritize
Check possible harm, recent changes, and doubt first.
- 03
Trace
Open the original record, data, or speaker's own words.
- 04
Check
Match the exact claim, scope, date, number, and quote.
- 05
Confirm
Find independent support or ask an expert when needed.
- 06
Record
Revise, cite, note the date, and log important corrections.
Publish only when every important claim is confirmed, clearly limited, removed, or sent to a qualified expert.
Sources and limits
Vibe Writing Hub's editors combined the claim list, harm-based priorities, source-fit test, and six-step workflow for this lesson. They are not one standard fact-checking method used everywhere. AP wrote its standards for journalists. This lesson adapts its useful rules for sources, quotes, and corrections to everyday AI-assisted writing. You should also follow the rules of your field and publication.
- NIST AI 600-1: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile (2024)
- Associated Press: Standards around generative AI (2023)
- Associated Press: Telling the Story, including attribution, quotations, and corrections
- Library of Congress: Primary Source Analysis Tool and guides
- Walters and Wilder: Fabrication and errors in ChatGPT bibliographic citations (2023)