Create a verification plan for a claim

작성자: AILesson7 분 소요테스트::ChatGPT검토일: 2026-08-28

빠른 답변

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

맥락 추가

텍스트는 이 브라우저에 유지됩니다. AILesson Prompts는 이를 모델이나 서버로 보내지 않습니다.

Exact claimDefinitions and scopeResearch constraints

프롬프트

채워지지 않은 필드는 플레이스홀더로 표시되므로 프롬프트를 복사하고 편집할 수 있습니다

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.

Playground에서 사용해 보기

기본적으로 비공개프롬프트 구성은 브라우저에서 로컬로 이루어집니다. 조직에서 허용하지 않는 한 기밀 정보를 AI 서비스에 입력하지 마세요.

입력에서 결과까지

적용 예시

구체적인 맥락이 이 레시피를 바로 사용할 수 있는 결과로 바꾸는 방법을 확인하세요

실제 입력

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.

예시 출력

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.

효과가 있는 이유

1
Atomic decomposition prevents one true detail from lending credibility to a broader unsupported claim.
2
Falsification and stopping rules make verification a bounded test rather than endless source collection.

결과 확인

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?

안심하고 사용하세요

자주 묻는 질문

이 레시피를 언제 사용해야 하는지, 무엇을 제공해야 하는지, 그리고 어떤 부분에서 사람의 검토가 여전히 중요한지에 대한 실용적인 답변

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.

더 많은 탐색 방법