AI makes things up with total confidence. Verify it

Here's the answer you just gave me:

[paste the answer]

Go through it again and sort every factual claim into three
groups:

A) I KNOW THIS FOR SURE — well-established, repeatedly
   documented, low risk of error
B) I'M NOT SURE — plausible, but I might have pieced this
   together; note specifically what could be wrong (a number,
   a year, a name, a range)
C) I DON'T KNOW / I GENERATED A LIKELY SHAPE — mainly specific
   numbers, citations, study titles, section numbers

Be strict with yourself. If you're not sure, it belongs in B
or C, not A. For every item in group A, write why you're sure.

Go through the attached text and list ALL factual claims that
can be checked against an independent source, in a table.

Columns:
claim (verbatim quote from the text) | where in the text
(paragraph/section) | type (number / citation / name / date /
legal claim / general) | risk (high / medium / low) | how to
verify it (specific type of source)

Rules for the risk column:
- high = a specific number, citation, section reference, a
  named person with a quote, or anything newer than your
  training data
- medium = generally accepted, but a specific figure
- low = a general principle, a definition, or my own content

DON'T judge whether the claim is true. Just list what needs
verifying. Don't skip a claim because it seems obvious to you.
At the end, add any claims worded so vaguely they can't be
verified at all — those need to be rewritten.

I need to verify this specific claim:

“[verbatim wording of the claim]”

Search the web for it and return:
1. Verdict: CONFIRMED / DEBUNKED / PARTIALLY TRUE / NOT FOUND
2. For each source found: name, publisher, publication date,
   link, and the verbatim passage that supports it
3. If sources disagree with each other, show both versions
4. The original source of the figure — who published it first;
   if every article you found just picked it up from one
   source, say so
5. The date the figure applies to, and whether a newer version
   exists

If you can't find it on the web, write NOT FOUND. Don't fill
it in from your own knowledge, and don't try to find something
similar instead.

In your previous answer, you stated: “[specific claim]”.

Answer me honestly, and “I don't know” is a perfectly fine
answer here:

1. Is this something you actually know from a specific source,
   or is it a shape of answer that fits this kind of question?
2. If you know the source, what's its exact name, who published
   it, and when?
3. How confident are you in this figure on a scale of 1-5, and
   why that number specifically?
4. What specifically could be wrong with this figure — the
   year, the unit, the population it refers to, the order of
   magnitude?
5. Where should I verify this to get a primary source, not
   something secondhand?

Don't search the web right now. I want to know what you know
and what you don't.

Please answer this question in your own words, regardless of
what anyone else might think:

[ask the original question again, exactly as it was worded
the first time]

I'm interested in:
- the specific answer, including numbers and units where
  relevant
- how you know this, and how confident you are
- what's disputed or commonly confused about this question

If you don't know the answer, say so. I don't need a guess.

I'm attaching the document [name], which is the only valid
source for this task. Here's the text I wrote:

[paste the text]

Check every factual claim in my text against the document and
return a table:
claim | page/section of the document | verdict | exact quote
from the document

Use these verdicts:
- HOLDS = the document states this the same way
- SHIFTED = the document states this, but more weakly, with
  a condition, or in a different scope; explain the difference
- NOT IN DOCUMENT = I can't find this claim in the document
- CONTRADICTS = the document states something different

Don't use anything outside the attached document, not even
general knowledge. Where you're not sure where in the document
something is, say so.

I have this key claim that my whole piece rests on:

“[claim]”

I need TWO independent sources for it. Independent means one
doesn't just pick it up from the other.

Do this:
1. Find the primary source — who originally published this
   figure (institution, study, annual report) and a link to
   the full text
2. Find a second source that arrived at the same figure
   independently, not by copying the first one
3. For both, give: who, when, what method or data collection,
   and the verbatim passage with the figure
4. Compare them: do they agree on numbers, period, and
   definition?
5. If a second independent source doesn't exist, SAY SO —
   don't substitute another article that just picked it up
   from the first one

At the end, tell me how strongly the claim is supported and
what specifically I should phrase more cautiously in the text.

Here's my original text, and here's the version you made from it:

ORIGINAL:
[paste]

YOUR VERSION:
[paste]

Compare them and list ONLY substantive differences, not
stylistic ones:
1. Claims that are in your version but weren't in the original
2. Claims from the original that are missing from your version
3. Places where a claim is worded more strongly or more weakly
   than in the original — quote both versions side by side
4. Numbers, names, or dates that differ

If the substantive content matches, say so. Don't comment on
stylistic changes.

Here's a paragraph from my text and the results of verifying
its claims:

PARAGRAPH:
[paste]

FINDINGS:
[paste what the verification found — e.g. the number is true
for 2023, not 2025; the source refers to a different region;
a second source wasn't found]

Rewrite the paragraph so it's accurate given the findings:
- for numbers, add the year, source, and population they refer
  to
- for claims with only one source, word them more cautiously
  and cite the source directly in the text
- drop claims that didn't hold up — don't replace them with
  similar ones you'd have to make up
- keep my style and paragraph length, don't add new claims

At the end, list exactly what you changed and why.

You're an editor checking a text before publication. Don't
touch style, you only care about factual reliability.

Go through the attached text and return four lists:

1. Claims presented as fact that have no source in the text
   and need one
2. Numbers without context — missing year, unit, population,
   or the base a percentage is calculated from
3. Vague attributions (“studies show,” “experts agree,”
   “it's generally understood”) that can't be verified
4. Phrasing stronger than what the text actually supports —
   especially correlation dressed up as causation, and
   generalizing from one case to the whole

For each finding, quote the spot in the text and suggest a
defensible way to phrase it. Don't fix the text yourself.