A fluent answer can still contain a wrong number, a source that does not support a claim or an important omission. Verification works best as an explicit stage in the workflow, with a named person responsible for the final result.
Check claims against sources
Open the original source and locate the passage or table behind each material claim. Confirm its date, geography, scope and units. A link that exists is not enough: the linked page must support the specific statement.
Recalculate important numbers
Use a spreadsheet or other deterministic calculation for totals and percentages. Check that numerator and denominator refer to the same period. Distinguish percentage changes from percentage-point changes.
Separate facts from judgment
Label direct observations, assumptions and interpretations. Where evidence conflicts, state the disagreement. If a critical input is missing, show the gap instead of filling it with a plausible number.
Use a repeatable review checklist
- Does the output answer the original question?
- Can each material factual claim be traced to evidence?
- Do dates, currencies, units and calculations match?
- Are forecasts and assumptions clearly labeled?
- Have privacy, permissions and intended audience been considered?
- Who signs off before the result is used?
Measure the review itself
Record checking time and the types of errors found. If review takes longer than doing the work manually, revise the workflow. Automation is useful only when the overall process meets your quality and effort requirements.
Create a brief with explicit evidence requirements →
Use an evidence ledger
Create a row for each material claim with the source URL or document ID, publication date, supporting passage, reviewer and status. Mark unsupported claims as unresolved. This is more useful than adding a long source list that does not show which source supports which statement.
For a numerical claim, record units and calculation steps. If the output says growth was 20%, confirm whether it means a relative increase or a change of twenty percentage points. Preserve the original data so a later correction can be traced.
Escalate uncertainty instead of hiding it
Some questions cannot be resolved from available evidence. State the missing information and the decision that depends on it. A reviewer can then decide whether to obtain more evidence, narrow the conclusion or defer the decision.