Check whether a chatbot citation actually supports the answer

Match the claim to a passage

Identify the response’s operative claim: a required permission, a limit, a supported format or a sequence of steps. Open the cited document and locate the passage that supports it. A citation to the product homepage or a broad category may be topically related without supporting the specific instruction. Record unsupported claims even when the rest of the answer is accurate and the link loads successfully.

Check scope and exceptions

A source may support a feature only on a particular plan, version or operating mode. Read the nearby limitations rather than extracting a reassuring sentence in isolation. If the answer drops an exception, the citation can be technically relevant while the guidance remains misleading. Keep the exact qualification in your expected answer record so later reviewers know which detail must survive paraphrasing.

Distinguish broken from wrong

A broken URL is a link problem. A working URL for the wrong release is a version problem. A correct document with no supporting passage is a grounding problem. These failures need different repairs. For a fictional export answer, a link to an import tutorial is not acceptable just because both pages mention CSV files. Avoid scoring every citation as valid merely because it returns a page.

Make verification possible for readers

Prefer answers that let a reader inspect the source without losing their place. Keep documentation accessible outside the chat interface. If a product cannot provide useful source references for the task, treat that as a limitation in the buying decision. This guide does not claim that citations eliminate hallucinations; it provides a practical way to notice when an apparently sourced answer is not actually supported.

• Write the supported claim and its source qualification together; a copied URL without the qualifying passage is an incomplete review record.