A note from the workshop
A bibliography can also be fiction.
A neat reference at the end of an answer looks reassuring. It still needs to exist and support the sentence attached to it. Use one harmless factual claim as a practice target. You are checking the evidence chain, not rewarding the answer for sounding educated.
Three useful checks
- Choose one exact claim: Copy the sentence and identify what evidence would establish it.
- Open the actual source: Find the publisher, title, date, and the relevant passage yourself.
- Compare claim and scope: Check qualifications, version, and whether the source says what the answer claims.
Put it into practice
Use a simple topic such as a documented software setting. Ask for the official reference and write down the exact claim. Avoid beginning with medical, legal, or financial decisions: a practice check should not quietly turn into a high-stakes recommendation.
Search the publisher’s own site if a supplied URL fails. A real title with a broken address and a completely invented paper are different problems; record which one you found. Do not enter credentials or download an executable just because the assistant presented a confident link.
A source may mention a topic without supporting the conclusion. Check the surrounding paragraph, product version, and conditions. Label your result supported, contradicted, or not established. Asking the same model to repeat its confidence is not an independent source check.
A citation has more than one job to do
There are several checks hidden inside the phrase sourced answer. The document must exist. It must come from the claimed publisher. The passage must support the exact claim. Its date, version, and scope must fit the situation in front of you. A link can pass the first two checks while failing the last two quite convincingly.
NIST’s generative-AI risk profile identifies confabulation as a risk. For this exercise, treat a bibliography as a set of leads to investigate rather than an automatic approval stamp. You are checking a particular answer, not measuring the trustworthiness of every model. That smaller question is practical enough to finish.
Work one software claim all the way back to its source
Choose a low-stakes claim about an ordinary software setting. Copy the exact sentence into your private notes. Then open the publisher’s actual documentation, independently if the supplied address looks suspicious. Search for the feature and read the surrounding explanation, including conditions and exceptions.
Here is an invented mismatch: the answer says an export includes everything, while the documentation says it exports selected records. The source exists, but it does not support the wider claim. Write “scope mismatch” and correct or remove the sentence. Do not rescue the claim by asking the same assistant to reassure you that its citation is fine.
- Extract one factual claim rather than attempting to approve a whole page at once.
- Check the publisher and document identity at the actual destination.
- Locate the passage and read beyond the highlighted search snippet.
- Compare product, version, account type, dates, and exceptions with the claim.
- Mark the claim supported, contradicted, or unresolved, with a short explanation.
When the document is missing, vague, or inaccessible
A broken link leaves you without evidence from that link. Search the publisher’s own site for the title or subject. If you find a replacement, compare the content rather than silently treating any similar page as the original source. If you cannot access the document, say that you could not verify it.
Be especially careful when a narrow statement becomes a universal one. A setting described for one account edition is not automatically available to every reader. A study of one task is not a promise about every use. These are reasoning errors even when every word in the bibliography is spelled correctly.
Leave a trail another reader could follow
Keep the exact claim, source title, direct address, relevant passage location, and your conclusion. Note the date you checked it when the information can change. This small record lets you revisit the decision without repeating the entire search. If an important claim stays unresolved, leave it out or label the uncertainty. A shorter accurate answer is more useful than a longer one with decorative references.
Know the limits
One supported claim does not validate the rest of the answer. NIST identifies confabulation as a generative-AI risk; this small exercise does not measure a model’s overall reliability.
Verify one claim and save the exact supporting passage privately.
Print the private field sheet. Record actions and observations, not passwords, recovery codes, or private documents.
Keep exploring: the offline AI experiment, lost-phone recovery, or the Recovery Drill.
About this field note
Original CRYPT1K editorial guidance. Sources reviewed October 21, 2026. Procedures are reader exercises; no unperformed hardware, account, or AI test results are claimed. Character and artwork are fictional and AI-assisted.