It is a simple text file. Open it in any text editor, or paste it into ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini and ask for help filling it in.
How to use it
Paste the working template and the draft into an approved assistant, or use it as a manual checklist.
Supply a source for each claim where available. Ask for a claim register before a rewritten draft.
Check that each source supports the exact wording. Return uncertain or sensitive claims to the named reviewer.
What you will need before you start
The exact draft to check
Source documents or links
A named reviewer for public or sensitive claims
The template
Fill in the blanks for your business. This is what you get when you download or copy it.
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
List each material claim.
Attach its source or label it Derived or Unknown.
Check whether the source supports the exact wording, not merely a nearby idea.
Remove or soften unsupported public claims.
Escalate sensitive, legal, financial, client, or commitment language to a named reviewer.
Output
Claim register
Source links or references
Open questions
Reviewer-ready revision
See an example
A made-up example, so you can see what a filled-in version looks like.
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 Do not publish from this review alone.
How to tell it is done well
No stronger claim survives than the source supports; source links are retained; public permission and factual support are considered separately.
Where a person should decide
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.
A source can support a claim without granting permission to publish it. This method is not specialist legal or financial review.
Edit your own copy on this siteAbout this version
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.