Fact-check a claim and produce a source table
Break a claim into checkable parts and document what reliable sources do and do not establish.
Best for
- Public claims, statistics and quoted statements
What you need
- Exact claim and where it appeared
- Relevant date, place and context
Limitations
Some claims cannot be resolved from public evidence, and recent events may change quickly.
Recommended tool
Perplexity
Perplexity can discover current linked sources; the user must inspect each source directly.
AI4E may earn a commission from partner links. This never affects which tool we recommend. Read the affiliate disclosure →
Pick your stack
Do it for nothing, or move faster with a paid tool.
AI4E may earn a commission from partner links. This never affects which tool we recommend. Read the affiliate disclosure →
Your copy-paste prompt
Fill in the blanks on the left and the prompt updates as you type.
Fill in your details
0 of 3 fields filled — every matching placeholder updates as you type.
Act as a rigorous fact-checker. Evaluate this exact claim: [CLAIM], made in [CONTEXT] on/about [DATE]. Split it into testable subclaims. Search for primary sources first, then reputable independent sources. For each source provide clickable link, publisher, publication date, source type, relevant evidence and limitations. Do not invent links, quotations or certainty. Separate verified facts, reasonable inferences and unknowns. Explicitly note conflicting evidence and uncertainty. Ask for missing context before judging. Return a source table and a cautious verdict for each subclaim, not one oversimplified label.
Step-by-step instructions
- 1
Capture the exact wording and original context.
- 2
Run the prompt and open every cited link.
- 3
Prefer original datasets, documents or direct records.
- 4
Revise the verdict when a source does not support the summary.
Check the result
- Original context is preserved
- Primary evidence is prioritised
- Links and dates work
- Unknowns are not presented as false
If the result is poor
- If sources are circular, trace them to the earliest document.
- If verdict is overconfident, request confidence and missing evidence.
Privacy and accuracy
- For consequential claims, consult a subject expert or professional fact-checker.
Sample input
Claim that a city cut traffic by 40% after a policy change, posted without a source.
Expected output
Three subclaims, a dated source table and a mixed verdict distinguishing vehicle counts from total trips.
What people do next
Three recipes chosen for the task that usually follows this one, not just for sharing a category.
Research & Learning
Compare several sources and identify where they disagree
30 mins · Claude
Start this workflow →
Business Automations
Create a sourced competitor comparison for a small business
45 mins · Perplexity
Start this workflow →
Research & Learning
Summarize a long PDF into a decision-ready briefing
15 mins · Claude
Start this workflow →
Part of a pathway
This recipe appears in an ordered set of recipes you can work through in sequence.