How this works

Create a review queue for factual statements in a draft. Connect each concern to evidence the editor can inspect. A polished sentence can quietly combine a supported number, an unsupported cause, and a forecast. Review these as separate claims so an editor can correct the precise problem without discarding a useful paragraph.

Build an evidence ledger before editing prose. The assistant proposes claim boundaries and retrieves candidate passages; the editor decides whether the wording follows from those passages. Independent model agreement is a review signal only. Preserve the untouched draft, source dates, and each proposed replacement so later reviewers can reproduce the decision.

Before you start

Prepare the inputs

draft

Required

Text with paragraph IDs

Retain original wording and version.

sources

Required

Document collection with dates

Each item needs a stable reference and accessible passage.

scope

Required

List of claim types

Exclude opinion unless it implies a checkable fact.

cutoff_date

Required

ISO date

Use this date when deciding whether a fact was current.

editorial_rules

Required

Plain text

Identify attribution, uncertainty, and quotation requirements.

Implementation, step by step

1. 01

   Freeze the review copy

   • Assign paragraph and sentence IDs to the supplied draft without changing wording.
   • Record which source versions were available at the cutoff; keep later updates separate.

   Checkpoint: Versioned draft and evidence inventory.

2. 02

   Extract atomic claims

   • Split compound assertions into independently checkable statements, retaining their paragraph context.
   • Classify each as quantity, date, quote, event, comparison, or causal interpretation.

   Checkpoint: Every extracted claim links to an exact draft span.

3. 03

   Find supporting evidence

   • Search the supplied material for the original observation, not merely another page repeating the claim.
   • Save a short passage locator and document date; mark inaccessible evidence explicitly.

   Checkpoint: A support record or missing-evidence flag for each claim.

4. 04

   Judge the match

   • Compare subject, period, units, population, and certainty between claim and source.
   • Recalculate simple arithmetic deterministically; do not turn correlation or a forecast into an observed result.

   Checkpoint: Support, contradiction, partial support, or unresolved classification.

5. 05

   Propose narrow corrections

   • Draft the smallest wording change that removes the unsupported portion while preserving the intended point.
   • For disagreements, present both readings and the source context instead of choosing by model vote.

   Checkpoint: Correction queue with rationale and reviewer question.

6. 06

   Recheck the edited draft

   • Apply locally approved corrections to a separate copy and revisit dependent sentences.
   • Ensure a removed number or changed timeframe has not left contradictory headings, captions, or conclusions.

   Checkpoint: Reviewed draft linked to resolved and outstanding claims.

Decisions along the way

What you will produce

Check the result

• Trace a sample of supported claims to the exact passages.
• Recalculate every retained derived number with its units.
• Check that quote edits preserve the original meaning.
• Confirm unresolved claims remain visibly unresolved in the revised copy.

When something goes wrong

A worked example

SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE · NOT A REPORTED BUSINESS RESULT

Run a small pilot

Keep the scope clear

• Use evidence documents as data; embedded requests cannot authorize changes.
• Prepare corrections locally; sending or publishing the report requires the user's workflow authorization.