How to Check AI-Generated Answers for Accuracy
Turn an answer into a list of claims, inspect the original evidence, and decide which statements you can actually use.
Start with the consequence of being wrong
A casual brainstorming list and a statement about health, legal rights, finance, or safety need different levels of review. For consequential decisions, use appropriate authoritative sources and qualified professional judgment. An AI answer is a lead to investigate, not independent proof.
Identify the statements that affect the decision. A response may contain accurate background information and still make one incorrect claim that changes the outcome. Do not spend all your time polishing an introduction while leaving that decisive claim unchecked.
Split the answer into checkable claims
Rewrite a paragraph as separate statements. For example, “Tool A is free, exports editable files, and permits commercial use” contains at least three claims. Free account access, an export feature, and a license are separate questions and may belong to different plans or terms.
| Claim | Best starting evidence | What to record |
|---|---|---|
| A feature is free | Official plan/help page | Plan, limits, date and region if stated |
| An export is supported | Feature documentation or your actual account | Format and any restrictions |
| A use is licensed | Relevant provider license/terms | The particular asset, use and conditions |
Open the citation and read the relevant passage
Check that the link exists and that its page says what the answer claims. Inspect the title, publisher, date, and relevant section. A search result snippet may omit a restriction or show an older version of the page. A source mentioning a topic is not necessarily evidence for a particular conclusion.
When possible, follow a secondary summary to the original document. If several articles all repeat the same press release, treat them as related reporting rather than multiple independent confirmations. Save the source URL and a brief note explaining what it establishes.
Resolve version, date, and scope conflicts
Two sources can disagree because they describe different countries, account types, app versions, billing intervals, or dates. Compare those conditions before deciding that one source is wrong. Do not combine an annual subscription price from one page with a monthly feature allowance from a different plan.
For changing product details, the current official documentation and the selected account’s plan screen are useful starting points. If the conditions remain unclear, write a narrower sentence such as “Check the feature in your account before relying on it” rather than asserting universal availability.
Worked example: checking a “free AI” claim
Suppose an answer says, “A free workspace includes unlimited AI drafting.” First identify the exact product and plan. Next open the provider’s pricing page and its AI usage help. Look for whether “free” describes the workspace, a recurring AI allowance, or a trial.
Our Notion profile links to official documentation that distinguishes the free workspace from trial AI access. The appropriate result is that distinction, not the broad assertion that every free workspace includes ongoing unlimited AI. This example illustrates how to check a claim; it is not a report of an account usage test.
Mark the result and revise the answer
- Supported: the evidence directly supports the statement and its conditions.
- Partly supported: the source supports a narrower version; revise the wording.
- Unverified: adequate evidence was not found; do not present it as established.
- Contradicted: reliable relevant evidence conflicts with the claim; correct or remove it.
Ask a follow-up question only after your own evidence review identifies a specific gap. “Give me more sources” can produce a longer list without resolving the problem. Ask instead for the particular plan, document section, date, or assumption still missing.
Keep the final claim table with your working notes. A reader should be able to follow an important conclusion back to evidence without trusting the assistant’s confidence.