Inspect the citations
- research
- verification
A citation is a claim about a source — and like any claim it can be wrong. Inspecting citations means opening the source and confirming two things: it exists, and it says what the answer says it says. Three failure patterns cover most of what you will find.
The three failures
- The source does not exist. Plausible study titles, researcher names and page names, generated to look real — hallucinated from top to bottom. If a search for the exact title finds nothing at all, stop there — an unfindable source is a non-source.
- The source exists but does not say that. The number is off by a factor, the quote is trimmed or invented, the study says “may be associated with” and the answer says “proven”. Search the exact phrase in quotes and compare wording.
- The source says it, but the source is weak. It exists and matches — and it is a blog post about a survey about a pilot. Real, but far from the primary source; sorting quality is the next lesson.
Checking in one minute
- Search the exact title or quote in quotation marks. Zero results → treat the claim as invented until proven otherwise.
- Open the source and find the number or sentence — browser search on the page is enough.
- For quotes, check the exact words and who said them.
- For numbers, check the number and the direction. “13% more productive” is not the same as “a 13% productivity difference”, and neither is the same as “13% of the effect”.
- One honest caveat: a working link is not proof either. Links can be real while the claim misreads them — the check is the text, not the link.
A bad example
Answer: “A 2021 Stanford study found remote workers are 13% more productive.”
No title, no authors, no link — you cannot even begin to check it. Treat the number as unverified; a precise statistic riding a vague citation is exactly where misattribution hides.
A better example
Ask: “Give the full citation for that study — title, authors, year — plus the exact sentence behind the 13% figure, and a link if you have one.”
Now you have a searchable pointer and a sentence to match. One search, one page-search, done.
The habit
When output will be reused — published, forwarded, put in a deck — the citations are your first stop, not the prose. Quote-first answers make this cheap: the quote is the claim, and the check is comparing it with the source. That is the same move as grounding, pointed at someone else’s sources instead of yours.
Practice
Inspect the suspicious citations
A teammate drafted an article using an AI answer as the source. Before it goes out under the team's name, you check what the answer's citations are worth.
Flag every part that should not be trusted as-is — where the citation must be opened and confirmed first.
The AI answer
Remote-work research summary: According to a 2021 Stanford study, remote workers are 13% more productive. Dr. Elena Marsh, who led the study, called the effect 'transformative'. Most companies now require two office days per week. Return-to-office policies have been debated publicly for years. Check your own organization's current policy before acting on any of this.
Hint
Numbers, names and quotes are the three things a citation must prove.
One sentence sends you to a better source — is that a problem, or good practice?
Why this is the answer
The three flagged parts all carry checkable specifics — a study, a named researcher, a quantitative sweep — attached to sources that must be opened before reuse. The two you leave alone either assert nothing specific or point you at the real source. That contrast is the skill: specificity demands evidence; generality does not.
Transfer
- Articles and briefs: no specific claim ships without a findable source behind it.
- Health, law and money: every citation gets opened, especially when the answer reads beautifully.
- Someone else’s AI-assisted draft: run the three failure patterns over it before you co-sign.
Next
Next: Primary vs secondary sources — the source exists and matches. But how far is it from the evidence itself?