01
Start with a question that can be answered
The query “which service is better” leaves too much freedom for the model. Specify the task: for whom the service is needed, what functions are required, in which country it will be used and for what date the conditions are needed. If you are comparing plans, set the currency, payment period and number of users separately.
Example query: “Compare three services for preparing presentations with a small team. Collaborative editing, PDF export, and template management are required. Use the official pages on the date of verification. For each function, provide a link and terms of availability. If there is no information, note this, do not draw a conclusion based on the name of the plan.” Here it is predetermined what information is considered an answer.
02
Ask for evidence for every claim
Instead of a list of references at the end, ask for a table: single fact, reference, date, and material disclaimer. This makes it easier to notice a line where the conclusion is not supported by the source. Do not ask the model to reproduce a large fragment of the article: usually a brief retelling and indication of the desired section is enough.
Clarification for the following message: “Check your answer. Which lines are based on the original source, which are paraphrased, and which remain conjecture? For unconfirmed lines, lower your confidence and explain what data is needed." This is an editorial technique and not a guarantee of accuracy: after answering, still open the key pages.
| Check field | What to write down | Example problem |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | One verifiable fact | Price, availability and quality are mixed in one phrase |
| Source | Official page or original message | All links lead to reprints |
| Date and Scope | Period, region, account type | Conditions of another market are presented as general |
| Restriction | What the source does not confirm | The function is available, but the required plan is not specified |
03
How to check a link, not just its presence
Open the page and look for the statement. The title of the search result can be shortened, and the page text can be updated. Check to see if the link points to the general home page instead of the required rule. For plans and features, up-to-date documentation is more important than a review with a compelling title.
For news, separate the fact of the event, the participant's statement, and the author's interpretation. The company's announcement confirms that the company has stated this; it does not always independently confirm the stated result. If multiple publications reference the same press release, this is one original version, not multiple independent confirmations.
Open the link and check the domain and author.
Find the fragment that relates to the statement.
Please check the post date, event date, and possible update.
Check region, plan, device and other eligibility conditions.
For a controversial conclusion, find an independent source or original document.
If the evidence is lacking, mark the conclusion as unsupported.
04
Analysis of a conditional example: “the function is available to everyone”
Suppose Grok writes: “The service has added export of presentations, now it is available to all users.” In the official news you find the launch of the function, and in the help you find the plan limitation. The correct summary should contain both information: the function exists, but access depends on the plan. The error was not in the name of the function, but in the unfounded word “all”.
The corrected conclusion can be stated as follows: “Export declared by developer; for our scenario, we need to confirm its presence in the selected plan.” Then test the specific format, editability, and behavior of the fonts. This example is conditional: it shows the verification method and does not describe the actual release of a particular service.
Be especially careful about the words “always,” “any,” “unlimited,” “free,” and “guaranteed” as they often hide unspecified terms.
05
Turn research into actionable results
Save the summary in your document: research question, review date, fact table, and short solution. Leave a direct link next to each important line. It should be clear to your colleague how you came to your conclusion, even if they don't have access to the original chat.
Dedicate the last query of the model to spaces: “What in this table could change the decision? What two facts should you double-check before purchasing or publishing? Do not entrust AI with the final decision in matters where an error has serious consequences. Grok's useful role here is to organize searches, show options, and reduce manual work; checking the key reasons is up to you.