Make unsupported claims easier to catch
Give the model usable evidence and a clear way to say when that evidence is insufficient.
Correct a known error against the original source
Internal test example. The deliberately incorrect draft below is written for this test; it is not a model response. A deterministic assertion checks the corrected statement against Prompeteer’s shared Memory policy, with no model calls. This checks a known contradiction, not arbitrary factual claims.
- Draft claim
The test draft grants Free upload and Ask Memory access.
- Source check
The current policy reserves those actions for Pro or Enterprise.
- Correction
Use the exact supported policy statement and retain its limits.
| Review step | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Known incorrect draft | Free accounts can upload new documents and use Ask Memory. |
| Original source | https://prompeteer.ai/pricing.md |
| Why it fails | The draft grants two capabilities that the current source reserves for Pro or Enterprise. |
| Supported correction | Memory preview is available on Free. New document uploads and Ask Memory require Pro or Enterprise; existing sources remain subject to account permissions and retention controls. |
Memory preview is available on Free. New document uploads and Ask Memory require Pro or Enterprise; existing sources remain subject to account permissions and retention controls.
This is an internal evidence-preservation test, not a benchmark for model accuracy or a claim that every hallucination can be detected.
Source: Current Free Memory policy
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A missing source, an outdated fact, a reasoning error and an invented citation require different checks.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| Source outdated | Check the effective date and applicable version |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
Published by Prompeteer. See the people responsible for the product and contact the team with corrections. The linked workflow artifacts describe exactly what was checked; illustrative examples are not customer results.
Reviewed