Verify an answer before using it
Separate supported facts, inference, quotations and action claims.
Reviewed: 2026-10-03
Illustrated teaching example • Fictional data
Narration: Microsoft Mark · locally synthesized

00:00:00.000 — Treat the draft as a set of claims.

Verification becomes easier when you separate a polished paragraph into individual claims. Numbers, quotations, dates, and action status often deserve explicit checks. In this fictional example, we will compare a brief with two source notes and repair what the evidence cannot support.

Visual description:
Claim → Source → Status → Correction

00:00:21.542 — Read the actual source requirements.

Source one permits a draft only trial after Lee’s approval. Publication requires a separate review. Source two schedules that publication review for October twentieth. Neither source mandates deployment, measures savings, or supplies a quotation from Lee. Keep those limits visible while checking the draft.

Visual description:
P1: Draft-only trial after Lee approval
Publication: Separate review required
P2: Review scheduled: 20 October
Savings / quote: Not supplied (warning)

00:00:45.333 — Spot four different failures.

The constructed draft demands deployment, claims forty percent savings, gives the wrong review date, and attributes a quotation to Lee. These are different failures: overstated authority, invented measurement, incorrect date, and fabricated quotation. A general instruction to be accurate is less useful than identifying each failure.

Visual description:
Deploy now. Savings: 40%. Review: 12 October. Lee: “Approved.”
Deployment: Exceeds draft-only scope (fail)
Savings: No measurement (fail)
Review date: Source says 20 October (fail)
Quotation: No supplied quote (fail)

00:01:10.417 — Check the citation’s support.

Pause. If a response links to source one, does that support the claimed savings or quotation? A citation is useful only when the cited source actually supports the particular claim. Open or inspect the source, match the claim, and record when support is absent.

Visual description:
Does P1 support “40% savings”?
The citation exists.
The claim is actually supported.
No. P1 contains no savings measurement.

00:01:31.208 — Preserve useful facts and repair the rest.

The repaired brief says a draft only trial can proceed after Lee’s approval. Publication requires separate review, scheduled for October twentieth in source two. Savings are unmeasured, and no quotation is available. This is useful information without pretending that authorization or results are broader than the sources establish.

Visual description:
Draft-only trial after Lee approval. Publication requires separate review, scheduled for 20 October in P2. Savings are unmeasured. No quotation is supplied.

00:01:55.458 — Choose the right verification method.

Use a source check for factual claims, a calculation for arithmetic, a test for executable behavior, and an approval record for authority. Each method answers a different question. If the required evidence is missing, qualify or remove the claim and say what would resolve it.

Visual description:
Facts: Authoritative supporting source
Numbers: Inputs, units and calculation
Behavior: Observed test or artifact
Authority: Applicable approval record

00:02:16.125 — Build your own claim ledger.

In the lesson exercise, list each consequential claim, its supporting source, the verification result, and the correction. Include at least one unsupported claim. Passing means a reviewer can trace the revised brief to evidence and distinguish facts from recommendations.

Visual description:
Can another person reproduce your check?
Claim and source.
Verified or unsupported.
Correction and unresolved evidence.
Your evidence: a claim ledger and repaired brief.