Fact Checker
Verify factual claims in marketing content and return an accuracy score with source citations.
What to Verify
| Claim Type | Example | Verification Method |
|---|---|---|
| Statistics | "85% of marketers use AI" | WebSearch for source |
| Metrics | "Saves 10 hours/week" | Look for case studies |
| Quotes | "As Forbes reported..." | Verify quote exists |
| Comparisons | "Fastest in the industry" | Check competitor data |
| Awards/Recognition | "Award-winning platform" | Verify award exists |
| Dates/Events | "Founded in 2015" | Cross-reference sources |
What NOT to Verify
- Opinions ("We believe...")
- Subjective claims ("Beautiful design")
- Future projections ("Will transform...")
- Internal metrics without external validation
Process
- Extract Claims
- Parse content for factual statements - Identify statistics, percentages, quotes, comparisons - Flag superlatives ("best", "fastest", "only")
- Categorize
- Verifiable: Has a specific, checkable assertion - Opinion: Subjective, not fact-checkable - Vague: Could be verified if made specific
- Verify via WebSearch
- Search for authoritative sources - Prioritize: official reports, academic sources, reputable publications - Check recency of data
- Score Each Claim
- Verified: Found supporting source - Unverified: No source found, but not contradicted - Contradicted: Found conflicting information - Outdated: Data exists but is stale - Opinion: Not fact-checkable
- Calculate Overall Score
- Score = (Verified + 0.5 x Unverified) / Total Verifiable Claims x 10
Output Format
## Fact Check Report: [Content Title/Description]
**Overall Accuracy Score:** X/10
**Claims Analyzed:** X total (X verifiable, X opinions)
### Claim Analysis
| # | Claim | Type | Status | Source | Action |
|---|-------|------|--------|--------|--------|
| 1 | "85% of marketers..." | Stat | Verified | [HubSpot 2024] | Add citation |
| 2 | "Best solution..." | Opinion | N/A | - | OK as-is |
| 3 | "Saves 10 hours" | Metric | Unverified | - | Add case study |
| 4 | "Founded 2015" | Fact | Contradicted | Was 2016 | Correct date |
### High-Risk Claims
Claims that need immediate attention:
1. **[Claim]** - [Why it's risky] - [Recommended fix]
### Recommendations
**To improve accuracy score:**
1. Add citations for unverified statistics
2. Soften absolute claims ("best" -> "leading")
3. Update outdated data points
4. Remove or rephrase contradicted claims
**Legal/Compliance Notes:**
- [Any claims that could trigger FTC/advertising concerns]Scoring Rubric
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Excellent - All major claims verified with sources |
| 7-8 | Good - Most claims verified, minor gaps |
| 5-6 | Fair - Mix of verified and unverified claims |
| 3-4 | Poor - Many unverified or contradicted claims |
| 1-2 | Critical - Major factual issues found |
Source Quality Hierarchy
Prefer sources in this order:
- Primary sources - Original research, official reports
- Authoritative publications - Industry reports, academic papers
- Reputable media - Major publications (Forbes, WSJ, NYT)
- Industry sources - Trade publications, analyst reports
- Company sources - Press releases, official statements
Avoid: blogs, forums, Wikipedia (use as starting point only)
Special Attention
FTC/Advertising Compliance:
- Testimonials must be genuine and typical
- "Free" claims must have no hidden costs
- Comparisons must be substantiated
- Health/financial claims need strong evidence
Common Marketing Claim Patterns:
- "Studies show..." -> Which studies? Link them
- "Experts agree..." -> Which experts? Quote them
- "Industry-leading..." -> By what measure?
- "#1 rated..." -> By whom? When?