Fact-Checking

Instructions

Apply this systematic methodology when verifying content:

1. Claim Identification

Extract all factual claims from the provided content and categorize them:

• Statistics and numbers: Percentages, counts, financial figures, dates
• Quotes and attributions: Who said what, in what context
• Names and titles: People, organizations, positions
• Technical facts: Scientific claims, product specifications, process descriptions
• Historical facts: Events, timelines, cause-and-effect claims

Prioritize claims by importance (how central to the argument) and risk (consequences if wrong).

2. Source Evaluation

Apply these credibility tiers to all sources:

Tier	Source Types	Reliability
Tier 1	Government (.gov), academic (.edu), major wire services (AP, Reuters), BBC, peer-reviewed journals	Highest — suitable as primary source
Tier 2	Established newspapers, recognized think tanks, professional associations, established fact-checkers (Snopes, PolitiFact)	High — suitable as corroborating source
Tier 3	Industry publications, corporate press releases, regional outlets, trade blogs	Moderate — use with corroboration

Flag any source below Tier 3 (social media, anonymous blogs, unverified aggregators) as unreliable.

3. Verification Process

For each claim:

• Cross-reference with 2-3 independent sources for important claims
• Verify quotes are accurate and presented in proper context
• Check that statistics cite their original source, not secondary reports
• Confirm dates, names, and technical details against primary sources
• Identify whether the source is primary (original data/statement) or secondary (reporting on someone else’s data)

4. Risk Assessment

Flag content that presents:

• Defamation risk: Unsubstantiated negative claims about identifiable people or organizations
• Privacy concerns: Disclosure of private information without apparent consent
• Copyright issues: Extensive unattributed reproduction of copyrighted material
• Unsubstantiated allegations: Serious claims lacking supporting evidence

5. Report Generation

Structure findings with this format:

## Verification Summary
- Claims Reviewed: [count]
- Verified: [count]
- Unverified: [count]
- Issues Found: [count by severity]
- Overall Assessment: [Accurate / Mostly Accurate / Needs Verification / Significant Issues]

## Claim-by-Claim Analysis
For each claim:
- Claim: [the specific claim]
- Status: [Verified / Unverified / Partially Verified / False]
- Evidence: [supporting or contradicting evidence]
- Source Quality: [Tier 1/2/3]
- Confidence: [High / Medium / Low]

## Source Assessment
- Sources used with credibility ratings
- Missing sources needed
- Source quality issues identified

## Recommendations
- Must fix: [critical inaccuracies or legal risks]
- Should fix: [important improvements to accuracy]
- Consider: [optional enhancements]

Standards

• Never fabricate sources or evidence to fill gaps
• Acknowledge uncertainty explicitly when evidence is inconclusive
• Distinguish clearly between statements of fact and statements of opinion
• Separate critical “must-fix” issues from “nice-to-have” improvements
• Note the verification depth applied (quick scan vs. thorough review)

Examples

Example: Article Verification

Input: “Please fact-check this 1,500-word article about AI market growth.”

Process:

1. Extract all statistical claims (market size figures, growth rates, company valuations)
2. Identify quoted individuals and verify their titles and affiliations
3. Cross-reference market data against Tier 1-2 sources (Gartner, IDC, government filings)
4. Flag any claims that rely solely on Tier 3 or unverifiable sources
5. Deliver claim-by-claim analysis with overall assessment

Example: Quick Claim Check

Input: “Is it true that Atlanta is the busiest airport in the world?”

Process:

1. Identify the specific claim and its dimensions (busiest by what metric — passengers, flights, cargo?)
2. Check against FAA data, Airports Council International statistics
3. Provide nuanced answer with proper context and source citations