Make unsupported claims easier to catch
Give the model usable evidence and a clear way to say when that evidence is insufficient.
Identify the failure before choosing the check
A missing source, an outdated fact, a reasoning error and an invented citation require different checks. Start by identifying which kind of failure occurred. More forceful wording alone does not provide missing evidence.
| Failure | Useful response |
|---|---|
| Source missing | Retrieve or supply authoritative material; otherwise abstain |
| Source outdated | Check the effective date and applicable version |
| Claim unsupported | Request the exact supporting passage and inspect it |
| Reasoning wrong | Check the steps, assumptions or calculation independently |
Ask for an evidence ledger
Use a compact claim-to-source table to inspect the support for each material statement.
Answer the supplied policy question using only the selected policy documents. For each material claim, include the exact supporting passage and source name. Mark conflicting statements separately. If the documents do not establish the answer, write "Insufficient evidence" and identify the missing information. Do not invent a citation or complete a missing policy from general knowledge.
Source grounding reduces one class of risk
A source can itself be wrong, a retrieved passage can be irrelevant and an answer can misinterpret it. Check material claims against the original. Use qualified human review for consequential decisions rather than treating an anti-hallucination prompt as a guarantee.
Common questions
Does a confident answer mean it is correct?
No. Confidence in wording is not evidence. Inspect sources, scope and the reasoning or calculation that supports the conclusion.
Sources and review
Reviewed