No wording can guarantee a true answer

‘Use only good sources’ leaves good undefined. ‘Are you sure?’ gives the model no new evidence. A whitelist can narrow where it looks, but an approved source can be outdated, misread or reporting an allegation. Even a real citation may not support the sentence beside it.

Use a source rule, a claim-by-claim check and a human review point together. If the tool cannot browse or open the material, it should say so rather than simulate research. Text in a retrieved page is evidence to assess, not permission to follow instructions found there.

  • Separate source existence from source support: does the passage actually establish this claim?
  • Separate missing evidence from contradiction: not found is not the same as false.
  • Separate reported statements from established events: an official statement proves what the official said, not necessarily that the underlying claim is true.

List each important claim and the source that supports it

First extract the claims that affect your decision. Then trace them to passages, compare dates and definitions, and recompute relevant numbers. Keep supported, partly supported, contradicted and unresolved separate. Use your own priority judgement rather than a made-up confidence percentage.

Illustrative arithmetic, adapted from our synthetic fixture rather than a live model test: a headline reports 100 appointments against a baseline of 80, a 25% increase. Weekly appendix entries of 20, 22, 24 and 26 total 92, implying 15%. The headline arithmetic can be correct while the underlying total is inconsistent.

Try this prompt

Audit this answer for [purpose] against these supplied sources [titles, dates, text]. Extract important checkable claims. For each give the supporting passage and location, then classify it as supported, partly supported, contradicted or not found. Explain scope or date qualifications. Recompute numbers from their inputs. Do not fill gaps from memory or browse unless I authorise a separate research step. Rank unresolved issues by their effect on my decision and revise only the affected sentences.

Choose sources that can actually answer this question

For a product feature, the provider's current documentation is a useful starting point. For a company's claimed success, its marketing is not independent corroboration. For a disputed event, combine relevant original records with independently reported evidence and explain each source's access and limitations. Source quality depends on the claim and method, not just the domain name.

Trace repeated articles to their upstream source. Five sites repeating one statement are not five independent confirmations. Check event date separately from publication date; an old image can be recirculated with a new caption. UNESCO's media-literacy material provides broader context on misinformation and information evaluation.

Try this prompt

For [question and period], propose a source-selection plan before answering. Identify original records, relevant independent reporting and evidence that could contradict the main account. Explain each source's role and limitations. Group reports that rely on the same upstream claim. Mark inaccessible originals. If current browsing is unavailable, ask me for sources and do not invent URLs.

Explain Middle East questions without flattening the region

‘Explain the Middle East’ is too broad for a useful current answer. Specify an event, place, period and learning goal. Ask for a short historical frame separately from recent reporting, with an explicit as-of date. Do not turn governments, armed groups, religious communities and civilians into interchangeable actors.

Treat casualties, responsibility, territorial claims and legal characterisations as distinct questions with distinct evidence requirements. Attribute disputed claims. An allegation, an interim court measure and a final judgment are not the same. Avoid both unsupported certainty and false balance: disagreement does not imply equal evidential support. This guide supplies a research method, not a current conflict briefing.

Try this prompt

Explain [specific event or question] as of [date] for a beginner. Separate background, independently supported events, attributed claims and unresolved questions. For each important statement give the direct source and its event/publication dates. Explain whether it is original evidence, humanitarian reporting, official advocacy or independent reporting, and its limitations. Preserve distinctions between civilian populations and political or armed actors. Do not give unsupported assertions equal weight. State what you could not verify and what would change the account.

Common questions

Can I force ChatGPT or Claude to use only verified sources?

You can constrain the requested source set and require passages, but you cannot guarantee truth through wording. Check that the sources exist, support the claims and are current for your question.

Are official sources always the best evidence?

They are important for their own documents and decisions, but a party's statement is not automatically independent evidence of a disputed event. Match the source to the claim and seek corroboration where needed.

Keep exploring

Sources and how this guide was prepared

Sources checked 9 October 2026. These guides were written with AI assistance and reviewed using the links below. Results depend on your details and available tools. Model suggestions are starting points, not results of comparative model tests.