Context and evidence
Give every source a job and every claim a trail.
Understand context windows and grounding, distinguish supplied evidence from general answers, and make source-based prompts easier to verify.
Updated
Context is the material available for this task
Relevant instructions, examples, source passages and conversation content help frame an answer. Grounding means tying claims to appropriate evidence instead of accepting a plausible general answer. Retrieval-augmented generation, often shortened to RAG, adds retrieved material to that context; it does not guarantee that the material is correct.
For a supplier comparison, the product sheet might provide facts, the contract draft might define obligations and your email might establish priorities. Name those roles. A stylish example should not become evidence of a supplier commitment.
Use file A for specifications, file B for proposed terms and my note for decision priorities. Compare the options for [decision]. Reference the source for each consequential claim. If sources disagree, show the conflict rather than silently choosing one.
Conversation history is not a verified source register
Long tasks can accumulate outdated drafts and abandoned assumptions. Create a concise handoff identifying the approved brief, current sources and unresolved questions. Do not assume an earlier statement remains correct just because it appeared in the conversation.
A finite context budget also means that piling in unrelated material is not a substitute for defining the question. In a fresh task, supply the actual sources needed to verify claims rather than relying only on a previous summary.
Create a handoff for a fresh session. Separate approved requirements, current source files, decisions, superseded assumptions and open questions. Include source locations. Do not turn an earlier generated answer into verified evidence.
A citation needs to support the claim beside it
A page reference can be real while the attributed claim is too broad. Inspect the cited passage, its population and caveats. For a consequential number, check the definition and calculation as well as the reference. Ask the assistant to distinguish directly stated facts from interpretation.
Audit these claims against the supplied documents. For each, provide the exact supporting passage or location and classify it as directly supported, partly supported, contradicted or not found. Explain any qualification that changes the meaning. Do not add an external source unless I request it.
Preserve the difference between absent and false
A document may omit a feature without proving the feature does not exist. ‘Not found in the supplied evidence’ is a useful result. It directs a follow-up question without manufacturing a negative finding.
When external research is allowed, keep it in a separate evidence column with date and source. This makes it possible to see what the uploaded report says and what you learned elsewhere.
List the questions these sources cannot answer. For each, explain why it matters and whether we need a missing appendix, a question to the author or current external research. Keep absence of evidence distinct from evidence against a claim.
Common questions
Does attaching a file make every answer source-based?
No. Explain how to use the file, request traceable evidence and verify important claims against the original.
Is a retrieved source automatically reliable?
No. Check its authority, date, scope and whether it actually supports the claim. Retrieval provides material to inspect, not a guarantee of truth.
Keep exploring
Sources and editorial note
Guidance checked 9 October 2026. These AI-assisted guides and original templates are reviewed against the linked sources. Results depend on your inputs and available tools. Model recommendations are editorial starting points, not comparative test results.