A register of claims links each important fact to a source, a scope and a validation decision. It helps to re-read product content with AI without confusing fluidity and accuracy. The register can remain simple: one line by verifiable affirmation.
Identify sentences that require proof
Highlight numbers, dates, product capabilities, technical rules and comparisons. Distinguish them from suggested advice and explicitly fictional examples. A sentence such as "this function is available" requires a version or service scope. A vague formulation can also mask a promise; Ask what a reader could reasonably deduce before keeping it.
Prepare useful columns
Note Affirmation, Source Document, Verified Passage, Control Date and Responsible. Add a state: confirmed, to be specified, to be removed or presented as a hypothesis. For a number, keep Unit, Population and Period. A value copied without its denominator can become misleading. The registry should be short enough to be used, and accurate enough to allow for further verification.
A registry line should lead to a decision
The registry is useful when it allows you to find why a statement has been kept, corrected or deleted. Avoid a simple column of copied links after writing. The source must support the sentence in its context; General documentation may be insufficient for precise capacity. Also keep the hypotheses and fictitious examples with a separate status, so that they do not gradually become facts attributed to the company.
| Affirmation of the draft | Control needed | Editorial decision |
|---|---|---|
| The tool exports in a specific format | Documentation of the version and service concerned | Keep only if capacity is confirmed |
| This method improves conversions | Actual measurement and award conditions | Submit as a hypothesis if no measure establishes it |
| A customer got this result | Adapted file and publication authorization | Remove if the case cannot be justified |
| Here is an example of calculation | Origin of values and accuracy of the calculation | explicitly announce illustrative values |
| The model can ignore missing sources | Device tests and limits | Do not turn a deposit into a warranty |
Google recommends to Check the accuracy of content generated by AI, including items that may appear in the results. The title, description and captions therefore belong to the same validation circuit. A correction limited to the main paragraph would leave an erroneous promise in the social map or search extract.
Check in the original document
Open the links and read the context. A template can provide a plausible URL that does not support its text. Google's recommendations on generative content insist on verifying accuracy, including metadata. So also re-read title, description, caption and alternative text. Don't just ask the same model if he is sure of his answer.
Fictitious example: an announced feature
A draft claims that a tool exports data in a specific format. The documentation describes only another format. The writer removes the unproven capacity or reformulates with the actual limit observed. The title is corrected if it promised this function. The decision remains in the registry to prevent a new generation from reintroducing the same statement during an update.
Link facts to versions and translations
- Assign a job identifier to the statement and write down the pages that depend on it. A rule shared by several articles must be able to be found without exhaustive manual search.
- Keep the source version or the verified passage, the date of the control and the person or role in charge of the decision. The "to check" status should remain visible until the point is resolved.
- After correction, look for the titles, excerpts and translations affected. A language version can retain the old statement if it is not regenerated or reread.
- Plan a review according to the stability of the fact. A product capability or interface requires a different tracking of a definition or fictional example.
In a demonstration, a text assumes that a service generates a format that its documentation does not mention. The decision is not to ask for a new, more convincing wording. It is necessary to remove the unproven capacity, limit the sentence to what is documented, or carry out a suitable test and keep its scope. The release of another model can help find a track, but does not alone constitute this proof.
This register completes the Brief from an expert interview and the Review of accessible references. It helps a team to publish regularly without confusing cadence with reliability. The closing criterion remains a justified decision on the content actually published, not just the passage of a verification tool.
Prepare for revisions
Identify the facts that may change and assign a review date. When a source evolves, look for items that depend on that statement. A daily publication remains compatible with this discipline if the subjects are well delimited. Complete your Hallucination control With this concrete follow-up: it must lead to corrections, not just a “reread” box.