Verify AI-assisted content: a pre-publication checklist

1. Separate facts from interpretation

A draft may mix launch dates, revenue, executive quotations and the writer’s interpretation. Each needs a different check. Dates and figures require documentation, quotations require originals, and analysis must not masquerade as the source’s conclusion.

List statements involving names, numbers, dates, causation or performance promises. Do not treat an AI’s assurance that it has rechecked itself as independent evidence. AI can flag claims; approval still depends on documents you can inspect.

2. Check whether the source actually says it

Prefer original announcements, research reports, product documentation or relevant official documents. Open them and locate the exact passage, table or page. Summaries can help discovery but should not replace source inspection when a number anchors the argument.

Check publication date separately from the period measured. A report published this year may cover last year’s survey. Attribute company-reported information accurately; do not imply third-party auditing unless the documentation establishes it.

3. Example: a correct percentage can still mislead

Hypothetical example: a document says 80 of 100 workshop participants completed an exercise. A draft claims “80% of businesses increased productivity with AI.” The arithmetic is correct, but the population, measure and conclusion have changed. Adding a link does not repair this.

Retain the original population and measured outcome. If discussing business implications, identify them as questions or hypotheses. Also distinguish percentage change from percentage-point change, plans from results, and association from causation.

4. A five-column verification sheet

Use five columns: draft claim, source and location, scope, status and action. Status can be checked, needs clarification or unsupported. Reviewers should see why a statement is retained, changed or removed, rather than a single green check for the entire article.

Remove nonessential unsupported claims or rewrite dependent passages. If a claim supports the headline and conclusion, hold the draft for further checking. “May” does not validate an unsupported allegation, and widespread sharing does not authenticate a quotation.

5. Review headlines and images, and retain changes

Headlines and covers make claims too. An article saying “planned” paired with a cover saying “confirmed” is misleading. Check names, logos, dates, captions and usage rights. Clearly identify AI illustrations when readers could mistake them for real events.

When an error emerges after publication, fix affected content and add a correction appropriate to its significance. Record the change, evidence and reviewer. This lets the next refresh build on existing verification instead of restarting source research.

Suggested actions