How do I spot details AI added on its own?

Watch the briefing

Watch the full video on YouTube

Full briefing transcript

The theater handover says to lock the building at eleven. The source notes never give a lockup time. That single added number can change what the next person does. Our example is fictional, and the mock output was written for teaching. To find unsupported additions, trace names, numbers, and commitments back to the input. A detail that sounds plausible still needs support.

Our invented evening notes have five facts. The audience leaves through the south exit. Twelve folding chairs remain in the foyer. The lighting console is off. A replacement key has been requested, but collection is unconfirmed. The duty manager must confirm lockup arrangements. No note states that the replacement key arrived, names a person collecting it, or gives a closing time. Those absences remain important.

Our flawed illustrative handover retains the chairs and console, then says Alex collected the replacement key and will lock at eleven. We now have an invented name, a completed collection, and a promised action at a specific time. The problem is not whether Alex could exist. The problem is that this source does not establish any of those details. Do not reward a draft for filling a gap you needed to keep visible.

Make a simple comparison table. One column holds the draft detail; another holds the matching source phrase; the last records supported, contradicted, or not established. Twelve chairs matches the notes. Console off matches. Alex has no matching phrase. The source does not establish that the key was collected. Unconfirmed does not mean the collection was impossible or disproved. Eleven o'clock has no matching time. This is a source-fidelity check, not proof that the notes themselves describe reality accurately.

Our corrected mock says the audience uses the south exit, twelve chairs remain in the foyer, and the console is off. It keeps the replacement-key collection unconfirmed and leaves lockup arrangements for the duty manager to confirm. No person or closing time is invented. Now all five source facts appear, with their qualifications. The collection question remains open, and the duty manager still needs to confirm the arrangements.

Sometimes the output clearly labels a suggestion, such as asking the duty manager about lockup. A suggestion is different from asserting the answer. Keep that distinction visible, and do not let tentative language disappear during editing. If an added factual detail is necessary, obtain it from an appropriate source and record the update. For claims that rely on outside citations, use the related Trust lessons to check the source and its support.

Trace names, numbers and commitments back to input. Start with the details that could change a person's next action, compare them with the source, and remove or mark what is not established. A fluent handover is not evidence that someone collected a key or agreed to lock up. The next briefing shows how to correct one precise error without discarding the entire draft.