# Source-Checking Skill

Version 1.1 · Kramaniti Kosh

## 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 Do not publish from this review alone.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.