Editorial draft available to read. Factual and language review is pending. Examples are illustrative.
Decision and method
Break the answer into verifiable claims and check which passage supports each one. Distinguish an existing citation from actual support: a valid link may not establish the number or promise attached to it. Classify missing evidence, insufficient evidence, conflicting sources and inferred reasoning so the corrective action addresses the real failure.
Illustrative example
Illustrative example: the assistant says an integration takes two weeks and links to a page that merely lists services. The link does not support the timeline. Review removes the assertion, explains the factors needed for an estimate and adds an evaluation question checking this same boundary in future assistant versions.
Acceptance check
Review major claims, numbers and commitments in a defined sample. Record whether each fix changes a source, retrieval behavior or instructions. Accept when remaining claims are supported or clearly identified as inferences, and missing information produces clarification or handoff rather than a confident answer that cannot be demonstrated from available evidence.
Key takeaways
- A citation adds confidence only when it supports the specific claim accompanying it.