The short answer
Check the claim against the passage; a real link can still support the wrong answer.
Audit whether an AI citation supports the exact claim, preserves qualifications and points to the current source rather than a plausible-looking reference.Compare each claim with its source
An answer can link to a real file and still misstate it. The passage may concern another project, contain an expired term or support only half the sentence. Open the link, then compare the claim with what the passage says.
Break the answer into claims you can check independently. "The delivery is Friday and installation is included" contains at least two claims. A source that confirms delivery says nothing about installation unless that is also stated.
Check one claim at a time
| Claim | Supporting passage | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery is Friday. | Supplier email confirms Friday for order K-17. | Supported for that order. |
| Installation is included. | Quote says installation is available separately. | Contradicted. |
| The warranty lasts two years. | No warranty term found in the approved sources. | Unknown. |
This table is a fictional review exercise. Review each claim separately as supported, contradicted or absent. One confidence label hides those differences.
Check four boundaries
First check identity: the source concerns the same person, project or order. Then check time: the term was effective for the relevant event and has not been replaced. Next check scope: the passage supports the exact quantity, condition or exception in the answer. Finally check authority: a draft proposal is not an approved commitment.
A sentence such as "delivery is normally within five days" should not become "your order will arrive in five days." The qualification is part of the evidence. Keep it in the answer or explain why another source establishes a firmer commitment.
Keep provenance when summarizing
When a note combines several sources, retain the supporting source for each consequential claim. A single link at the bottom can conceal which passage supports which part. W3C's provenance model offers a formal vocabulary for relationships among information, activities and responsible agents. You do not need to implement that standard to keep a clear evidence trail.
Record the source, the passage location and the revision or date you read it. Note how you turned it into the summary. If you edit the summary, recheck that its references still support the new wording.
Test a plausible but unsupported answer
Use three short synthetic sources: one current fact, one outdated fact and one unrelated document with similar terms. Ask a question that requires the current fact plus a detail none of the sources contains.
The desired response should answer the supported part and identify the missing part. Save both retrieved passages and final text. If the answer supplies the missing detail, investigate whether it came from the model's general knowledge, an unintended source or unsupported inference.
Observe a receipt fail after its source changes
Our fictional schedule originally stated:
The Monday schedule sets the inspection for 18 October.
The receipt names schedule.md, its document hash, the exact quotation and its source position. Those fields let another check inspect the same evidence.
We reproduced the demonstration against the System and Full 1.1.0 archives. The fixture changed its disposable schedule to 25 October. The old receipt then returned verified: false, identifying stale or missing source support.
After maintenance, the new result quoted 25 October. Read the before-and-after receipts. The record retains entailment_verified: false: matching source bytes does not certify the meaning of every claim.
| Check | What it establishes | What remains your responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| Document hash | The version matches the receipt. | Assess source authority. |
| Quotation and position | The text occurs at that location. | Read surrounding qualifications. |
| Relationship support | The graph edge has inspectable evidence. | Assess the relationship's meaning. |
The deliberate mutation tests stale-source detection. In normal record keeping, preserve the original and add a dated amendment.
Keep a review record another person can inspect
- Open the named document.
- Locate the exact quotation.
- Read the surrounding passage.
- Compare the answer with the passage's conditions.
- Check amendments and conflicting sources.
- Record unsupported parts of the answer.
A scheduled inspection is not a completed inspection. A newer file date does not establish authority to replace an earlier commitment.
Download the citation-review worksheet. Continue with conflicting facts or stale-index diagnosis, depending on what failed.
Make source checks part of buying
Gigabrain links knowledge to its sources so you can check the evidence behind an answer. The recorded local test shows one citation result and how retrieval handled missing evidence. Check each new answer against its source.
Use the source-contract worksheet, inspect the evidence and compare plans for the knowledge system and tools to use with your agent.
Method note: Gigabrain Labs prepared this article with AI assistance. Linked records define the measured scope. Fictional exercises remain separate from executed results.
