Grounded summaries: build a claim ledger instead of trusting citations
Check whether each statement is supported, contradicted, or absent from its cited evidence.
Learning lesson · Reviewed October 2, 2026. Allow additional time for the practice. Prerequisite: Write an AI task brief. No AI subscription is required; all exercise evidence is supplied.
- Break a generated sentence into independently checkable claims.
- Distinguish support, contradiction, and missing evidence.
- Revise a summary while preserving scope and uncertainty.
A citation can be real while the sentence next to it is unsupported. The useful question is whether the cited passage establishes the exact claim. A claim ledger pairs each statement with its evidence, status, and required revision. This continues the earlier source-checking lesson with a repeatable worksheet for reviewing AI-assisted text.
Use a controlled evidence packet
The following documents are fictional. Source A says: “Cedar 2.1 adds CSV export for workspace administrators only. Archived records are excluded. No rollout date is stated.” Source B says: “In a pilot involving 12 workspaces, eight administrators completed an export task without assistance. The pilot did not include standard members.” These are teaching passages, not product announcements or research findings.
Now review this deliberately flawed summary: “Cedar exports every record for all users, and its pilot proved that two-thirds of customers find it easy.” One fluent sentence contains several separate claims. Evaluating it as a whole would conceal which parts need repair.
| Claim | Evidence | Status | Revision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Every record can be exported | A excludes archived records | Contradicted | State the exclusion |
| All users can export | A names administrators | Contradicted by the stated role restriction | Keep administrator scope |
| Eight of twelve completed unaided | B states this count | Supported | Preserve the sample and task |
| Two-thirds of customers find it easy | B did not measure all customers or general ease | Unsupported | Report task completion in the pilot only |
| The feature launches today | A has no date | Not established | Mark rollout date unknown |
Preserve the denominator and the measured outcome
In this fictional pilot, 8 / 12 is approximately 66.7%. The arithmetic is valid, but the meaning must travel with it: administrators completing a specified task in 12 pilot workspaces. The number does not become a satisfaction rating, a customer-wide success rate, or proof of ease in every context. A correct calculation can support an incorrect headline when the population or outcome changes.
Separate claims→Source
Locate passage→Status
Supported or gap→Revision
Restore scope
Write a summary that the packet actually supports
A corrected illustrative summary is: “Cedar 2.1 adds CSV export for workspace administrators and excludes archived records. In a fictional 12-workspace pilot, eight administrators completed the export task without assistance. The packet gives no rollout date and no evidence about standard members or overall customer satisfaction.”
This version separates the feature description from the pilot observation. It also makes the missing evidence visible. “Not established” does not mean “false”: a missing rollout date in this packet cannot prove that the feature has no rollout plan. It means this packet does not answer the question.
Apply the ledger to real research
For a real claim, record the original URL, document title, publication or update date, and the relevant section. Check that the page is current for the question and that a repost has not changed the scope. A primary product document establishes what its publisher says; it may not independently establish performance in your environment.
NIST's generative-AI profile describes confidently presented false content as confabulation and recommends checking sources and citations in generated outputs. Our ledger is a small original exercise for applying that verification habit. It does not certify a model or substitute for expert review of a specialized claim.
Practice: distinguish an absence from a contradiction
Classify these two claims using the packet: “Archived records are exported” and “The pilot measured task completion time.” For each, write the minimum correction that avoids adding new facts.
Show the worked solution
The first claim is contradicted: Source A explicitly excludes archived records. Correct it to “Archived records are excluded.” The second is not established: Source B reports completion without assistance but supplies no timing measurement. Write “The packet does not report completion time,” rather than claiming no one measured time anywhere.
Before moving on
Your ledger should let another reader find the evidence and reproduce your status decision. The next lesson adds an input review: even useful evidence can contain sensitive information or instructions that should not control the task.
Official sources checked October 2, 2026. Examples, exercises, and rubrics are original Noetrion teaching material; fictional datasets are identified below.