Verify claims in technical writing — procedure

Purpose

Use this procedure in AI workflows when:

A draft was written or rewritten by an LLM and may contain added/strengthened claims.
The draft includes world-claims (standards/specs, versions, “latest”, metrics, comparisons, security/performance assertions).
You need an auditable output (clear separation of what is proven vs not proven).
Your runtime cannot browse (or browsing is disallowed) and the draft relies on external facts without pasted evidence.

Enforcement (fail-closed):

Inputs must include DRAFT and EVIDENCE MODE (ARTIFACTS_ONLY or EXTERNAL_VERIFICATION_ALLOWED).
You must not add new technical/factual claims. You may only remove, qualify, or rephrase claims to match available evidence.
Treat any link-only “source” as NOT VERIFIED unless the relevant evidence is quoted in the input or external verification is explicitly allowed and available.
Output must follow this exact section order:
- A) TERMINOLOGY CONTROL
- B) CLAIM LEDGER (VERIFIED / NOT VERIFIED / DISPUTED)
- C) OVERCLAIM SCAN
- D) FINAL CLEAN TEXT (or INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE)
- E) CONFIDENCE (0–100)
Out of scope (architecture review / code-quality review / performance tuning / repo-specific best practices): output only
INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE: out_of_scope_use_quality_gate
If the draft’s core intent cannot be preserved without NOT VERIFIED claims, output only:
INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE: <what is missing>

Prompt templates (2) Hide prompt templates

Option 1 (Artifacts-only): verify using only pasted excerpts/quotes/standard IDs (no browsing).
Option 2 (External verification allowed): verify using authoritative sources if browsing/search is available in the runtime.
Option 3 (Out of scope): use the Engineering Quality Gate for architecture/code-quality reviews.

1) Install the system prompt template:

evidence-gated-technical-writing-gate.system.txt 2) Paste the user runner template and fill it in:
evidence-gated-technical-writing-gate.user.txt 3) Set EVIDENCE MODE:
ARTIFACTS_ONLY (no browsing; pasted evidence only)
EXTERNAL_VERIFICATION_ALLOWED (browsing may be used if available) 4) Paste the DRAFT and SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
Prefer pasted quotes/excerpts + standard IDs + doc sections.
Avoid link-only evidence unless EXTERNAL_VERIFICATION_ALLOWED is selected and browsing is available. 5) Require the exact output sections A→E (in order).

1) Provide a draft with at least one non-trivial claim, and provide no supporting evidence.

Expected: output only INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE: <what is missing> 2) Provide an out-of-scope request (e.g., “review my architecture”).
Expected: output only INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE: out_of_scope_use_quality_gate 3) Provide a draft + pasted authoritative evidence for each core claim.
Expected: D) FINAL CLEAN TEXT contains only VERIFIED claims, and E) CONFIDENCE (0–100) is present.

Policy (rules): Evidence-Gated Technical Writing Policy (Claims)
System prompt template (copy/paste): evidence-gated-technical-writing-gate.system.txt
User prompt template (copy/paste): evidence-gated-technical-writing-gate.user.txt
Procedure: Verify claims in technical writing — procedure

Example

Question: “Verify claims in this draft and rewrite it so only VERIFIED claims remain.”
You must provide: the full draft + pasted evidence excerpts/quotes/standard IDs for each core claim. If missing evidence prevents preserving core intent, output INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE: <what is missing>.

Policy (rules): Evidence-Gated Technical Writing Policy (Claims)
System prompt template (copy/paste): evidence-gated-technical-writing-gate.system.txt
User prompt template (copy/paste): evidence-gated-technical-writing-gate.user.txt
Procedure: Verify claims in technical writing — procedure

Example

Question: “Verify these claims using authoritative sources and rewrite the draft to remove overclaims.”
You must provide: the draft + scope constraints (product/version/date/time window) + confirmation that browsing/search is available. If browsing is unavailable, link-only sources remain NOT VERIFIED.

Example

Question: “Review this repo for layering violations and best-practice issues.”
You must provide: goal + materials (files/tree) + constraints + authoritative sources (or explicit permission to browse).

Using this procedure for architecture/code-quality review (use the Engineering Quality Gate instead).
Providing link-only “sources” while browsing is unavailable and expecting claims to be VERIFIED.
Leaving NOT VERIFIED or DISPUTED claims inside D) FINAL CLEAN TEXT (final text must contain only VERIFIED claims).
Not enumerating all non-trivial claims in B) CLAIM LEDGER.
Breaking the required output section order A→E.