Full Stack AI SEO

Resources / Content strategy & quality / Template

Claim-and-source record template

Track material claims, exact supporting evidence, source context, limitations, review decisions, and later changes for a substantive page.

What this template is for

Use this record to test whether the evidence supports the material claims in a page as they are actually written. It connects each claim to a specific source location, preserves limitations, and records the human review decision.

A bibliography or list of URLs cannot do this job by itself. A reputable source may support only part of a sentence, describe a different product version, report an organization’s position rather than an independent finding, or apply to a narrower population than the draft implies.

Create the record when planning the evidence, update it as the wording changes, and retain it with the approved page version. Do not place confidential evidence, personal data, licensed material, or security-sensitive details in a system that is not approved to hold them.

Copyable record

Copy the sections below into the system your editorial team maintains. Use stable claim and source IDs so the same evidence can support more than one claim without duplicating its context.

# Claim-and-source record: [page or project title]

## Record control

- Record ID: [stable internal identifier]
- Page owner: [person]
- Writer: [person]
- Fact-checker: [person]
- Editor: [person]
- Specialist reviewer, if required: [person, qualification or role, or not required]
- Draft or page URL: [URL or system location]
- Version reviewed: [version, commit, document state, or publication identifier]
- Review status: [planning / in review / approved / published / reopened / retired]
- Review started: [YYYY-MM-DD]
- Approved by and date: [person, YYYY-MM-DD]
- Next review trigger: [date or event]

## Scope

- Intended reader: [audience]
- Reader question, decision, or task: [one sentence]
- Direct answer: [working answer]
- Included: [subjects this record covers]
- Excluded: [subjects outside this record]
- Material-risk areas: [privacy, rights, medical, legal, financial, safety, security, other, or none identified]

## Source register

| Source ID | Title or record | Publisher or origin | Author or owner | Source type | URL or system | Published or effective | Updated or version | Accessed or observed | Relevant scope and limitations |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| SRC-001 | [exact title or record name] | [organization or system] | [author, team, or unknown] | [official documentation / standard / research / public record / product data / interview / independent reporting / other] | [specific URL or internal location] | [YYYY-MM-DD or unknown] | [date, version, or not stated] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | [market, population, method, source interest, access limits, or other context] |

## Claim register

| Claim ID | Exact claim wording | Location in draft | Claim basis | Material? | Source IDs | Evidence location | Conditions and limitations | Check result | Reviewer and date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CLM-001 | [sentence or discrete assertion] | [section, paragraph, table, caption, or metadata] | [source-backed fact / original observation / analysis / editorial recommendation / hypothetical example] | [yes / no, with reason if useful] | [SRC-001 or not applicable] | [heading, page, paragraph, table, row, timestamp, query, or record field] | [timeframe, version, market, population, uncertainty, method, or other boundary] | [unreviewed / verified / revise / replace source / remove / unresolved] | [person, YYYY-MM-DD] |

## Original tests and observations

| Evidence ID | Question | Setup and variables | Sample or coverage | Date and environment | Observed result | Proposed explanation | Limitations | Evidence location | Reviewer |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| OBS-001 | [question tested] | [procedure, inputs, controls, and variables] | [URLs, prompts, cases, participants, or other units] | [date, product version, account state, market, device, or other conditions] | [what was observed] | [interpretation, kept separate from the observation] | [what the test cannot establish] | [file, log, capture, or repository location] | [person] |

## Quotations, media, and permissions

| Item ID | Material | Source or creator | Intended use | Attribution required | Permission or license basis | Scope or expiry | Status | Owner |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| USE-001 | [quotation, image, video, audio, screenshot, or dataset] | [creator or source] | [where and why it appears] | [required wording or none] | [owned / licensed / permission recorded / exception reviewed / unresolved] | [territory, channel, term, or other condition] | [approved / replace / remove / unresolved] | [person] |

## Open issues and decisions

| Issue ID | Related claim or source | Question or conflict | Consequence if unresolved | Decision or required action | Owner | Due date | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ISS-001 | [CLM-001 / SRC-001 / other] | [specific issue] | [effect on accuracy, safety, rights, or usefulness] | [narrow wording / find evidence / obtain specialist review / remove / other] | [person] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | [open / resolved / accepted limitation / blocking] |

## Review and change history

| Date | Version | Claim or section | Change | Reason and evidence | Checked by | Approval state |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [YYYY-MM-DD] | [version] | [claim ID or section] | [what changed] | [why, with source or issue IDs] | [person] | [pending / approved / published] |

Decide which claims are material

A material claim could change a reader’s understanding, decision, action, risk, or trust in the page. Treat these as material unless the context clearly shows otherwise:

Minor transitions and obvious instructions do not need a row merely because they are declarative sentences. When several assertions appear in one sentence, split them into separate rows if they depend on different evidence or limitations.

Match the source to the claim

Review source quality in relation to the fact being established. Official documentation can establish what its publisher says a product supports. It may not establish typical performance. A controlled product database can establish the current listed price. It may not explain why the price changed. Independent research may supply useful scrutiny, but its conclusion still depends on its population and method.

For every material source-backed claim:

  1. Open the full source.
  2. Confirm its identity, publisher or origin, date, and version.
  3. Locate the exact supporting evidence.
  4. Compare every part of the claim with that evidence.
  5. Record any condition that must remain with the wording.
  6. Decide whether to verify, narrow, replace, remove, or leave the claim unresolved.

Do not treat a search snippet, an AI-generated citation, a link copied from another article, or a source’s title as confirmation. They can help locate evidence, but a person must inspect the underlying source.

Record limitations where reviewers will see them

Name the practical boundary instead of writing a generic warning. Useful limitations include:

Carry a material limitation into the page beside the claim it qualifies. Keeping it only in this internal record does not prevent the published wording from overstating the evidence.

Filled fictional claim decisions

This example is fictional. It shows how the same source can support one narrow claim and fail to support a broader one.

Page question: “How should a product team describe an internal pilot?”

Claim IDExact draft wordingSource and evidence locationLimitationReviewer decision
CLM-EX-01“In a 12-account pilot conducted from April through May, the new setup flow reduced the median completion time from 18 to 11 minutes.”SRC-EX-01, fictional pilot report, results table 2Twelve invited accounts; median completion time only; the report does not establish performance for all customers or future versions.Verified. Keep the population, timeframe, measure, and comparison in the published sentence.
CLM-EX-02“The new setup flow makes every customer faster.”SRC-EX-01, same tableThe pilot does not cover every customer, does not establish causation for all environments, and measures only a limited time window.Revise. Replace with the verified pilot result or remove the claim.

The source is not rejected because it is small. The reviewer preserves the result it can support and removes the universal conclusion it cannot.

Validate the completed record

  1. Compare the claim register with the final draft, including headings, tables, captions, calls to action, metadata, and structured data.
  2. Confirm that each material factual claim has appropriate evidence and an exact evidence location.
  3. Resolve every blocking issue and identify any accepted limitation in the published wording.
  4. Recheck claims changed during editorial or specialist review.
  5. Record the exact approved and published versions.
  6. Open the live page, test its source links, and confirm that implementation did not alter the claim.
  7. Reopen affected rows when a review trigger occurs or a substantive correction is proposed.

Continue the workflow

Use the editorial workflow for human-led content to move the record through expert input, drafting, fact-checking, approval, publication, and maintenance. Return to the Human-led content editorial checklist to review the specific controls, or read the Human-Led Content guide for the broader responsibility model.

References

Completion check

  • Record the exact claim being reviewed rather than only its topic or citation.
  • Open each source and identify the passage, table, data, or record that supports the claim.
  • Preserve dates, versions, populations, markets, methods, and other limits that constrain the evidence.
  • Recheck a claim whenever its wording or supporting evidence changes materially.