AI Output Evidence Checker — Verify Sources Before You Share

Reader problem

An AI answer can include a polished citation list and still misstate what a source says. The practical question is not only “Does this answer have a link?” It is “Does the cited source support the exact claim, quote, number, date, and name I plan to share?”

AI Output Evidence Checker turns that question into a local review worksheet. It finds claim candidates, detects URL and DOI markers, flags unresolved evidence placeholders, and shows which claims have no source marker on the same or adjacent line. It does not open sources or decide whether a citation supports a claim.

AI Output Evidence Checker

Find claim candidates, locate cited URLs and DOIs, and build a manual claim-to-source review list before you share an AI answer.

Local processing · No source is opened automatically

The tool contains no network-request code. It reads input in browser memory and releases the in-page file reference when you select Clear.

For privacy, secret, and metadata checks before upload, use AI Submission Privacy & Evidence Checker.

1. Add the AI output

Paste text, select one text file, or use both. The optional file also receives a local SHA-256 digest.

Maximum 10 MiB. Plain-text formats are scanned for claims and source markers. Other files receive a SHA-256 digest only.

2. Confirm the manual comparison

What this local check cannot decide

The checker uses limited text patterns. It can miss claims and citations, and a nearby URL or DOI can be unrelated, broken, secondary, or misleading. It does not fetch links, resolve DOIs, read source pages, or decide whether a source supports a claim.

Open each source in a separate browser session and locate the exact supporting passage.
Compare quoted words, numbers, dates, names, units, methods, scope, and limitations.
Prefer primary material when the decision requires it, and record the retrieval date.
Keep the unchanged output, the reviewed sources, and the final corrected copy.

Approved 760px direct render of the v2 interface with the safe synthetic example.

How to use it

Paste the AI answer, select a text file, or use both.
Select Build evidence review.
Read the claim-to-source worksheet. Treat every nearby marker as a cue, not proof.
Open each source and locate the supporting passage.
Compare quoted words, numbers, dates, names, units, methods, scope, exceptions, and publication dates.
Keep the unchanged output, reviewed sources, retrieval date, corrected copy, and SHA-256 record when the decision matters.

The text boundary is 200,000 characters and the file boundary is 10 MiB. The tool calculates a local SHA-256 digest for pasted text and a selected file. A digest helps identify changed bytes; it does not establish authorship, accuracy, or source support.

What the checker reviews

Claim candidates containing dates, quantities, research or report language, causal language, or broad terms.
Source markers in URL, DOI, and selected bracketed citation forms.
Claim candidates without a source marker on the same or adjacent line.
Unresolved evidence placeholders.
Quoted passages, numbers, dates, and name cues that need exact comparison.
Manual source-opening and detail-comparison steps.
SHA-256 evidence records for pasted text and the optional file.

These are review prompts, not verdicts. A claim can escape the patterns. A nearby URL or DOI can be broken, unrelated, secondary, or misleading.

Two tools, two jobs

Use AI Output Evidence Checker when your question is: “Does the cited material support what this AI answer says?” It organizes claim and source comparison.

Use AI Submission Privacy & Evidence Checker before uploading material when you need privacy, secret, or metadata checks. The v2 output checker deliberately does not repeat those checks.

A compact verification method

Isolate the claim. Keep the subject, action, measure, population, and time period.
Open the cited item. Resolve the DOI or open the URL, confirm the title and publisher, then find the relevant passage.
Compare the details. Match the quote, units, denominators, dates, names, population, method, and limitations.
Record the review. Keep the unchanged answer, source material, retrieval date, corrected copy, and SHA-256 values when byte-level tracking matters.

Why manual comparison remains necessary

NIST AI 600-1 treats confabulation and information integrity as risks that call for measurement, documentation, and human oversight. C2PA provides a technical framework for provenance information, but provenance context does not by itself establish whether a claim is true. Crossref explains how to verify that a DOI resolves to its registered landing page. None of these steps replaces reading the source passage that is supposed to support the claim.

FAQ

Does a detected URL mean the claim is supported?
No. Open the source and compare the relevant passage.

Does the tool validate DOI records?
No. It recognizes DOI-shaped text without making a network request.

Why can a claim with a nearby marker still be wrong?
The source may discuss a different population, date, measure, method, or limitation.

What does SHA-256 prove?
It helps compare byte sequences. It does not prove authorship, accuracy, permission, or source support.

Does the tool check private data, secrets, or file metadata?
No. Use the separate pre-upload checker linked above.

이 블로그 검색

AI 업무 실전 노트