Fact-check an AI draft claim by claim

Mark claims before polishing sentences

Start the fact check on a stable draft. Highlight numbers, dates, product capabilities, comparisons, quotations, and statements that tell readers what a platform will do. Do not begin with grammar: a beautifully edited error is still an error. Give each material claim an identifier so an editor can refer to it without copying entire paragraphs into comments. Separate factual assertions from suggestions. A sentence saying that a workflow is useful needs a different review from a sentence saying a vendor currently supports a particular integration on every subscription tier.

Choose the source that can establish the claim

Use a vendor's current documentation for its documented feature behavior, a pricing page for advertised plan limits, and your own recorded test for what happened in your environment. These sources answer different questions. A feature announcement may establish that a capability was introduced, but not whether it remains available to all customers. Record access date and scope. If the only evidence is another comparison article, follow its citation to the original material before repeating the assertion. If you cannot resolve it, narrow or remove the claim.

Make uncertainty visible in the wording

Treat words such as always, every, instantly, and guaranteed as signals to investigate. Often the evidence supports a smaller statement with a condition attached. Replace a universal claim with the tested scenario, account type, or documented limitation. Distinguish a company-reported milestone from an independently measured outcome. Google's AI-content guidance and helpful-content documentation provide the broader quality context; the practical claim ledger described here is an editorial method, not a search-engine requirement. Its value is that another person can reconstruct the reasoning behind the published sentence.

Hypothetical example: fixing a misleading feature claim

Suppose a draft says a publishing tool connects to every CMS and updates articles instantly. The documentation only describes a webhook and a WordPress connector, while your test took several minutes. Split the sentence into two verifiable statements. State which destinations are documented, then describe the observed test as one example rather than a service guarantee. Add the account tier and test date to your working notes. The resulting paragraph is less dramatic but gives a buyer substantially better information for deciding whether the product fits.

Close each issue with a decision

Every flagged claim should end as verified, qualified, replaced, or removed. A reviewer comment saying check this is not a resolution. Re-read the paragraphs around a changed claim because removing one statement can leave an unsupported conclusion elsewhere. Recheck any links added during revision and confirm the published preview still displays the qualification. Keep the ledger private if it includes internal notes, but expose the sources readers need. For fast-changing claims, assign a refresh owner so the article does not quietly outlive the evidence that made it accurate.

• Check every number against its original source and stated measurement period.
• Verify product claims on the relevant plan rather than a generic overview.
• Remove unresolved assertions before the article enters the publishing queue.