# Check the facts before you publish

Version 1.1 · Kramaniti Kosh

> How to use this file: fill in the Working template section below. It opens in any text editor, or you can paste the whole file into ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini and ask it to help you fill it in for your business.

## Intended outcome

A draft whose claims are traceable, qualified, or removed.

## Before you begin

- The exact draft to check
- Source documents or links
- A named reviewer for public or sensitive claims

## How to use

1. Paste the working template and the draft into an approved assistant, or use it as a manual checklist.
2. Supply a source for each claim where available. Ask for a claim register before a rewritten draft.
3. Check that each source supports the exact wording. Return uncertain or sensitive claims to the named reviewer.

## Working template

## Purpose

Protect a draft from unsupported claims and make the evidence trail easy for a human reviewer to inspect.

## Labels

- Observed: directly supported by a source.
- Derived: a reasoned implication from observed material.
- Unknown: requires confirmation before use.

## Method

1. List each material claim.
2. Attach its source or label it Derived or Unknown.
3. Check whether the source supports the exact wording, not merely a nearby idea.
4. Remove or soften unsupported public claims.
5. Escalate sensitive, legal, financial, client, or commitment language to a named reviewer.

## Output

- Claim register
- Source links or references
- Open questions
- Reviewer-ready revision

## Demonstration

This is an illustrative scenario, not a client case study or a measured result. Do not reuse its details as facts about your work.

A sample draft says a new handoff eliminates approval delays.

### Sample inputs

Demonstration inputs only: draft claim “Our new handoff eliminates approval delays.” The supplied sample note only says that a reviewer field was added.

### Example output

#### Claim register
Claim: “Our new handoff eliminates approval delays.”
Evidence: sample change note records a reviewer field.
Label: Unknown. No outcome measurement supports “eliminates.”

#### Reviewer-ready revision
“The updated handoff includes a named reviewer.”

#### Open questions
Did the team use the field? What changed in review turnaround? Is publication of the change approved?

#### Human review
[Name the owner] must confirm the revised wording and publication permission. Do not publish from this review alone.

## Quality check

No stronger claim survives than the source supports; source links are retained; public permission and factual support are considered separately.

## Limits and human review

A source can support a claim without granting permission to publish it. This method is not specialist legal or financial review. Keep consequential actions with the named human owner.

## Edition notes

Version 1.1 adds setup guidance, an illustrative example and a review checklist. Provider-neutral Markdown instructions; no installation or platform compatibility is implied. Runtime behaviour has not been verified across AI providers. Reuse terms have not yet been published.