Step-by-step method
A reproducible path from question to conclusion.
- 1
Break down the answer
List names, figures, dates, quotations and recommendations separately. Rank points by the consequence of being wrong. A decorative detail should not consume the time needed for a decisive fact.
- 2
Test the reference
Open the original document through an independent route where necessary. Check its existence, title, author and whether the passage supports the claim.
- 3
Check context
Compare population, territory, unit, observation period and publication date. A report published this year may describe an earlier year.
- 4
Reproduce the calculation
Recalculate from the cited data and record the formula and rounding. Do not compare percentages with different denominators.
- 5
Rewrite the conclusion
Separate sourced confirmation, reasoned interpretation and unverified points. Remove references that do not support the sentence.
A citation must support the exact sentence
An existing article does not validate the summary attributed to it. Locate the passage, unit and caveats. If a link leads to a general page, find the precise publication; if it remains inaccessible, mark the check incomplete.
A second answer from the same system is not an independent source. Seek the primary document, then separate corroboration where a fact or attribution remains disputed.
Check freshness without inventing an update
A recent consultation does not update the source data. Record both dates and the publication’s coverage. For a role, price or rule that may change, check the responsible publisher directly.
If versions disagree, record the difference, date and context of each. Disagreement may reflect a correction, population difference or error; do not silently choose the convenient figure.
Prepare a shareable validation file
The log can contain claim, primary URL, relevant passage, period, finding and next action. Avoid sending secrets, complete personal records or client data to a tool whose use has not been authorised.
The NIST generative AI profile provides a risk-management framework. This IIS grid is an editorial checking method; it certifies no system and produces no universal reliability rate.
Common pitfalls
Four shortcuts that weaken the result.
Trusting confidence
Good prose does not replace a source.
Counting links
Check relevance rather than quantity.
Only asking the AI to confirm
Return to original documents.
Hiding doubt
Keep limitations in the delivered document.
Practical questions
Frequently asked questions.
Is a sourced answer reliable?
Links make checking possible. Their presence alone guarantees neither accuracy nor support for every sentence.
Must every word be checked?
Prioritise decisive claims, then precise facts, quotations and calculations. State the scope actually verified.
What should be delivered?
A corrected summary and a checking table linking each important claim to its status, source and limitation.
Public references
NIST AI 600-1 — Generative AI Profile. Voluntary framework for generative AI risk management.
Editorial scope
Published by Internet Intelligence Service on 3 October 2026. Last content update: 3 October 2026. This educational guide describes a lawful, defensive method. It is not legal advice, an emergency service or authority instruction.