# Check the claim. Open the source. Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Canonical: https://clankercloud.ai/learn/verify-ai-research Ask for a source location behind each important claim, then open the original and check that it supports the exact statement. Keep source facts, calculations, interpretations, and unresolved questions distinct. A citation makes a claim inspectable; it does not establish that the claim is correct. ## What you are working toward A research brief whose important claims can be checked against identified sources. ## Start with - A question with a defined decision and audience - The relevant source files or accessible web sources - A date and scope for the facts you need to establish ## Define the claim you actually need A useful research question has a decision boundary. “Can this supplier meet our requirement for weekday support during a six-week rollout?” identifies what must be established. “Tell me about the supplier” invites a broad summary that may never resolve the operational question you care about. Record the relevant date, geography, product, and account tier when they affect the answer. A policy about one plan is not evidence about another. Put supplied files in a Project and explain the criteria in its instructions. Ask the Session to identify missing inputs before turning a partial search into a firm recommendation. ## Build a small register of consequential claims Request one row for each fact that materially changes the decision. Include the claim, its source, a location within that source where available, and its status. Useful statuses include directly stated, calculated from stated values, interpreted, contradicted, and not found. These are labels you request in the output, not automatic product verification. Prioritize primary sources for changeable product or policy details. A vendor’s documentation may establish its published terms; an independent account may help assess how those terms work in practice. Keep those purposes separate. Several articles repeating the same announcement do not provide several independent confirmations of its contents. ## Check a fictional support-policy conclusion Suppose fictional Cedar Studio is comparing two proposals. One proposal promises weekday email support, a marketing page says help is always available, and a pricing table lists an optional support package. The brief should not collapse those statements into “24/7 support is included.” The evidence table exposes the question to resolve before a purchase. The ambiguous claim can stay in the brief as an open issue while the supported comparison proceeds. This lets the research remain useful without presenting an unsupported answer as a settled fact. | Candidate claim | Fictional evidence | Review decision | | --- | --- | --- | | Weekday email support is included. | Proposal, support section: weekday email support. | Supported for this proposal. | | A person answers at all hours. | Marketing page: help is always available. | Not established; channel and response terms are missing. | | Premium support has no extra cost. | Pricing table lists a separate support package. | Contradicted or incomplete; request the applicable terms. | ## Verify the source at the point of use Open the cited file in Preview or follow the source link. Read enough surrounding text to see exceptions, footnotes, and definitions. Confirm that a quotation or paraphrase refers to the right entity and period. For tables, check the column heading and unit as well as the number. “Up to 50 users” and “50 users included” describe different terms even though they share the same number. When a linked page has changed or is unavailable, mark the claim as unverified until you have suitable evidence. Do not replace the missing source with a plausible URL or a snippet that lacks its qualifications. If you retain a permitted Project copy, identify when it was obtained and avoid implying that it stays synchronized. ## Handle contradictions before polishing the summary Ask the Agent to list conflicting statements side by side and explain which one the draft used. A newer date can matter, but it does not automatically outrank a signed proposal or a source about the exact product. Establish an appropriate precedence rule for the question rather than applying a universal newest-wins rule. For derived figures, request the inputs and calculation. A percentage can be mathematically correct while using the wrong denominator or reporting period. Recalculate consequential numbers independently. Keep recommendations conditional when a missing fact would reverse the choice, and name that fact in the conclusion instead of burying it in a footnote. ## Save a brief that another person can audit Ask for a concise decision brief and the accompanying claim register as requested deliverables. Review the saved files themselves, including any table or later page, before using them. A reader should be able to move from the conclusion to the deciding claim and then to its original evidence. Keep useful replies in Bookmarks and lasting findings in Archive → Wiki with source links. Record what needs rechecking before the next use. Research about current availability, price, or policy has a different useful lifetime from a historical explanation. Reusing the work should preserve that distinction rather than silently refreshing its date. ## Try this prompt Copy into a Workspace Session. Opening Workspace does not send it automatically. ```text Research this question using the files and sources I provide. Make a claim register with the claim, source filename or URL, section or page where available, source date, and whether it is a stated fact, calculation, or interpretation. Identify contradictions and missing evidence. Verify the claims that determine the conclusion, and write a brief that preserves any unresolved limitations. ``` ## Before using the result - The decision scope and relevant date are explicit. - Deciding claims point to sources that support their exact wording. - Calculations show their inputs and denominator. - Conflicting and missing evidence remains visible. - The saved brief includes what needs rechecking later. ## Common questions ### What can I bring into a Project? Upload documents, spreadsheets, PDFs, images, and presentations, or attach files and paste images in a Session. Add Project instructions to explain the audience, preferred format, and facts the Agent should use. [Read more in the FAQ](https://clankercloud.ai/faq#source-files) ### How do I reuse research and useful answers? Keep quick references in Bookmarks. Save lasting knowledge in Archive → Wiki, open articles to follow their source links, and keep related files and instructions in a Project. Check cited sources before relying on a research result. [Read more in the FAQ](https://clankercloud.ai/faq#knowledge) ### Where do I find and review the finished files? Open your Project’s Files tab or General → Files. In a Session, Preview opens a side panel where you can select a file. Use page, sheet, or slide controls where available, check the contents, and download the result. [Read more in the FAQ](https://clankercloud.ai/faq#review-files) ## Sources - [Workspace guide: research in a Session](https://workspace.clankercloud.ai/#page=faq&tab=articles&article=first-useful-session) - [Workspace guide: source links and saved knowledge](https://workspace.clankercloud.ai/#page=faq&tab=articles&article=files-and-knowledge) ## Related - [Compare your sources. Make a clearer decision.](https://clankercloud.ai/learn/research-with-project-files) - [Find what changed and why it matters.](https://clankercloud.ai/learn/compare-document-versions) - [A vendor decision with the evidence attached.](https://clankercloud.ai/templates/vendor-comparison) [Open Workspace](https://workspace.clankercloud.ai) [Current pricing and usage](https://clankercloud.ai/pricing)