Who this guide helps
Teams reviewing unsupported model claims
The short answer
Trace the answer back to permitted evidence and identify where the unsupported claim entered. A confidence score or fluent explanation cannot replace a source.
Practical workflow
Keep the prompt version, retrieved material, tool output and generated answer for authorized review. Mark the incorrect claim and whether it came from stale content, wrong retrieval, a tool mismatch or generation without evidence. Remove sensitive data from broader incident summaries.
What a useful handoff looks like
Correct the customer-facing record through an approved human process if needed. Update the source or workflow, then retest the same failure and related cases. Keep uncertain findings marked uncertain rather than inventing a technical cause.
Mistakes to avoid
Do not ask the model to justify its own answer and treat that as independent verification. Avoid concealing an error with a silently edited log.
Working example: fields to record
| Field | Illustrative entry — replace with your own facts |
|---|---|
| Unsupported claim | Feature absent from approved source |
| Possible cause | Retrieval mismatch awaiting review |
| Retest case | Original failure with expected safe response |
Add your own entries; the example is illustrative. Keep sensitive information private.
Sources & further checks
Official references are starting points for further checks, not approval of a specific case, product or project.
Editorial note
AI-assisted editorial guidance; not expert certification.
Original editorial guidance. Examples are illustrative, not client cases, measured outcomes or promised services.
Legal and health-related decisions require appropriately qualified local professionals. This site is an independent editorial resource, not a law firm or medical provider.