Check AI-generated sources before you trust the claim.
FactSentinel helps reviewers inspect AI-assisted claims with source links, reasoning, caveats, confidence, and model disagreement in one browser workflow.
Confident AI wording can hide weak evidence.
AI-written summaries, citations, quotes, and draft claims can look finished even when the source trail is thin, circular, or missing. A useful review pass keeps the claim and evidence visible before anyone accepts the answer.
Check the exact claim
Start with the wording you want to verify, not a softened paraphrase that changes the evidence burden.
Inspect sources
Look for source links, citation context, caveats, and whether the evidence actually supports the claim.
Use disagreement
Model disagreement is a signal to slow down, not a failure. It shows where a human review needs to focus.
Use it when AI output needs receipts.
The source-checking workflow is built for readers who need to decide whether an AI-assisted claim is ready to share, cite, teach, edit, or publish.
AI citations
- Questionable source names
- Unsupported statistics
- Quotes without context
Research notes
- Summaries from assistants
- Claims copied from search results
- Conflicting source trails
Editorial review
- Draft assertions
- Newsletter claims
- AI-assisted copy checks
Highlight, check, then challenge the result.
Use the Chrome extension from the page you are reading, or paste a claim into the web checker. FactSentinel surfaces verdict, confidence, reasoning, model split, caveats, and source links so the answer can be challenged.
Need an exact-claim pass first?
Use the AI claim checker when the immediate question is whether one sentence, quote, date, number, or named-source claim has enough support to move forward.
Why a source checker should show disagreement.
A single confidence number can make weak evidence feel settled. The stronger pattern is to keep model disagreement, caveats, reasoning, and sources visible together.
Need a broader hallucination review?
When an AI answer may include invented sources, unsupported numbers, or confident wording with a thin evidence trail, use the hallucination checker workflow before the claim moves forward.
Need a broader misinformation pass?
Use the AI misinformation checker when the source trail is mixed and you want the wider review workflow before choosing a specialized checker.
Checking a full AI-generated draft?
Use the AI content review page when several generated claims, sources, and citations need a first-pass review before the draft moves forward.
Need a citation-specific workflow?
When a reference list looks polished but unverified, use the citation checker path to slow down around titles, journals, authors, dates, and whether the evidence supports the claim.
Need source reputation and claim evidence?
Source ratings can help evaluate a publisher. FactSentinel focuses on the exact claim and source trail. Use the comparison when you need to decide which layer answers the question in front of you.
Need to know if this was already fact-checked?
Published fact-check search and live source review answer different questions. Use the Google Fact Check Explorer comparison when you need to decide whether to search prior checks or inspect the exact claim yourself.
Need newsroom fact-checking and monitoring context?
Full Fact published checks, corrections work, and AI monitoring solve a different layer from live source review. Use the comparison when prior newsroom coverage and exact-claim evidence both matter.
Need a political fact-check starting point?
PolitiFact ratings and live source review solve different parts of the workflow. Use the comparison when a political claim may already have a Truth-O-Meter rating but the exact wording still needs review.
Need to triage many claims first?
Claim spotting and live source review answer different questions. Use the ClaimBuster comparison when you need to decide whether the first job is scoring check-worthy sentences or reviewing one exact claim.
Case study: when fake sources reached an AI policy draft.
South Africa withdrew a draft AI policy after fictitious sources appeared in its reference list. The incident shows why generated citations need an inspectable source trail before publication.
Common questions
What is an AI source checker?
It is a review workflow for checking whether an AI-assisted claim has a source trail that can be inspected. FactSentinel shows sources, reasoning, caveats, confidence, and model disagreement for human review.
Can it prove every citation is real?
No. It is a first-pass tool. Use weak sources, missing links, conflicting model reads, or caveats as signals to verify manually before publishing or sharing.
Should I use the web checker or Chrome extension?
Use the web checker for pasted claims. Use the Chrome extension when you want to highlight text from an article, document, newsletter, search result, or source page.
Check the source trail before the claim spreads.
Use FactSentinel when AI-assisted text includes claims, citations, or sources that need a visible review trail.