S'inscrire gratuitement

Create a verification plan for a claim

Auteur: AILesson7 min de préparationTesté avec:ChatGPTRévisé: 2026-08-28

Réponse rapide

Decompose a claim into testable parts, evidence standards, source routes, and stopping rules. Fournir: Exact claim, Definitions and scope, Research constraints. Résultat attendu: A source-aware verification protocol with alternative explanations and decision thresholds.

1

Ajouter votre contexte

Votre texte reste dans ce navigateur. AILesson Prompts ne l’envoie ni à un modèle ni à un serveur.

2

Votre prompt

Les champs non remplis restent visibles sous forme d’espaces réservés, afin que vous puissiez quand même copier et modifier le prompt.

Create a verification plan for the exact claim.

Claim, speaker, date, context, and intended use:
[claim]

Population, measure, period, geography, comparison, causality, and materiality:
[scope]

Time, access, existing sources, excluded methods, risk, and confidence needs:
[constraints]

Do not decide whether the claim is true yet. Parse it into atomic factual, definitional, comparative, causal, predictive, and normative components. Identify ambiguous terms, hidden denominators, time sensitivity, attribution, and the strongest plausible alternative interpretations. For each testable component provide what evidence would support, weaken, contradict, or leave it unresolved; preferred primary sources and fallback sources; exact retrieval or calculation steps; source independence and conflict checks; bias and data-quality risks; and a record template. Include falsification attempts, alternative explanations, decision labels, escalation for high-stakes uncertainty, and a stopping rule tied to the intended use.
Essayer dans le Playground
Privé par défautL’assemblage du prompt se fait localement dans votre navigateur. Évitez de placer des informations confidentielles dans un service d’IA, sauf si votre organisation l’autorise.

De l'entrée au résultat

Un exemple détaillé

Voyez comment un contexte concret transforme cette recette en résultat utilisable.

Entrée réelle

Exact claim
A vendor sales deck dated 2 August 2026 says: ‘Our automated invoice matching cuts processing time by 60% and pays for itself within three months for mid-sized retailers.’ Procurement wants to cite this claim in an investment memo.
Definitions and scope
Mid-sized retailer is undefined. Our company processes 24,000 invoices/year across three currencies. Compare end-to-end staff time from invoice receipt through approved posting, not only matching step. UK operations. Need to separate observed vendor-customer results, causal effect, and payback forecast.
Research constraints
Five working days. Vendor may provide methodology and references; we can inspect internal time/cost baselines but cannot run a pilot yet or contact named customers without permission. Investment memo is a material £90k decision, so vendor marketing alone is insufficient. Current pricing quote expires 31 August 2026.

Exemple de sortie

Atomic components: C1 the product is automated invoice matching; C2 “processing time” fell 60% in a defined population/period; C3 the product caused that change; C4 results apply to a retailer comparable to ours; C5 total costs are recovered within three months; C6 the statement remains current on 2 August. “Processing,” “mid-sized,” baseline, sample, currencies, exception rate, implementation cost, and payback formula are ambiguous.

C2 evidence: request the study protocol, before/after distributions, denominator, dates, included workflow steps, exception handling, and raw/aggregated records; support requires consistent end-to-end measure, while matching-step-only timing weakens applicability. C3: seek comparison design and concurrent process changes; alternative explanations include staffing, policy, invoice mix, and learning. C4: compare volume, currencies, ERP, exception mix, and staffing. C5: reproduce payback using £90k plus implementation, integration, training, support, and internal change cost against verified labour savings; test low/base/high adoption rather than accept one forecast.

Sources: vendor methodology and contract terms; independent audit or permitted reference validation; internal time sample, loaded labour costs, invoice/error/rework data; official product/security documentation. Record claim, exact source/date, method, population, measure, result, limitation, independence, status. Labels: supported, partly supported, contradicted, or insufficient. Stop after calculations reconcile and at least one independent evidence route supports material inputs; otherwise state “insufficient for memo” and recommend pilot/contractual performance condition.

Pourquoi cela fonctionne

  1. 1

    Atomic decomposition prevents one true detail from lending credibility to a broader unsupported claim.

  2. 2

    Falsification and stopping rules make verification a bounded test rather than endless source collection.

Vérifier le résultat

  • Are all factual, comparative, causal, and predictive components identified separately?

  • Does the plan actively seek contradictory evidence and independent sources?

  • Is the evidence threshold proportionate to the claim's intended use and risk?

Utilisez-la en toute confiance

Questions fréquentes

Des réponses pratiques sur le bon moment pour utiliser cette recette, ce qu’il faut fournir et les cas où une vérification humaine reste nécessaire.

What should I prepare before using “Create a verification plan for a claim”?

For “Create a verification plan for a claim,” prepare Exact claim, Definitions and scope, and Research constraints. Replace placeholders only with information you can verify. If a detail is unknown, preserve that uncertainty explicitly instead of asking the model to infer it.

When is the “Create a verification plan for a claim” result not ready to use?

The result is not ready if it does not yet deliver the stated outcome—A source-aware verification protocol with alternative explanations and decision thresholds—from the supplied evidence, or if it relies on unresolved assumptions, missing approvals, or invented details. Use the checks as release gates: revise the source inputs or assign a named, authorized reviewer instead of polishing an unsupported output.

Which AI tools have recorded tests for “Create a verification plan for a claim”?

The published test record for “Create a verification plan for a claim” lists ChatGPT as of 2026-08-28. This confirms recorded runs, not guaranteed compatibility or identical results in later product versions. For another tool or version, keep every constraint visible and repeat the result checks before use.

Plus de façons d'explorer

Où se situe cette recette

Prompts texteRecherche et analyse

Faites avancer votre travail

AILesson · Cours recommandés

Votre prochaine étape : mettez l’IA à contribution

Passez de la compréhension de l'IA à l'action. Entraînez-vous à formuler des requêtes, à évaluer et à améliorer les résultats grâce à des leçons interactives pour le travail et la vie quotidienne.

Découvrir tous les cours
Image de couverture de L’IA pour débutants

15 leçons interactives

L’IA pour débutants

Lancez une conversation utile avec une IA, améliorez sa réponse, vérifiez l’essentiel et sachez quand c’est à vous d’agir.

Découvrir ce cours
Image de couverture de Les bases de ChatGPT

10 leçons interactives

Les bases de ChatGPT

Découvrez ChatGPT à travers trois flux de travail pratiques : mener une première conversation, travailler à partir d’un fichier, puis utiliser Projects pour réutiliser un plan vérifié dans une nouvelle conversation.

Découvrir ce cours
Image de couverture de Comment fonctionne l’IA générative

7 leçons interactives

Comment fonctionne l’IA générative

Comprenez comment les systèmes courants de chat IA apprennent des structures linguistiques, utilisent les messages actuels, construisent leurs réponses et intègrent des sources et des outils.

Découvrir ce cours