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

1. Extract Claims

   • Parse content for factual statements
   • Identify statistics, percentages, quotes, comparisons
   • Flag superlatives ("best", "fastest", "only")

2. Categorize

   • Verifiable: Has a specific, checkable assertion
   • Opinion: Subjective, not fact-checkable
   • Vague: Could be verified if made specific

3. Verify via WebSearch

   • Search for authoritative sources
   • Prioritize: official reports, academic sources, reputable publications
   • Check recency of data

4. 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   • Outdated: Data exists but is stale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

5. 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 Update outdated data points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:

1. Primary sources - Original research, official reports
2. Authoritative publications - Industry reports, academic papers
3. Reputable media - Major publications (Forbes, WSJ, NYT)
4. Industry sources - Trade publications, analyst reports
5. 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?