Claim-level grounding and citation checks

Learning outcome: Check that each consequential claim is supported.

An answer can cite a real document while making a claim the document does not support. Grounding checks connect individual claims to specific passages. They also inspect whether the source is applicable and current for the question.

Break a response into consequential claims: amounts, dates, conditions and responsibilities. Mark each as supported, contradicted or unresolved. A source that mentions the same topic is not enough. An automated judge can help organise checks, but its conclusions also need validation against reference cases. Preserve an option to say the available evidence is insufficient.

Worked example

A fictional answer says “All contractors receive a laptop within two days,” citing an onboarding guide. The guide says employees can request equipment and gives no delivery promise. The citation exists, but both “all contractors” and “within two days” are unsupported. A useful answer identifies the eligibility gap and asks the equipment team about timing.

Try it yourself

Annotate the fictional answer claim by claim. Write a revised answer containing only supported information and clearly labelled unresolved questions.

You can do this exercise on paper. If using an assistant, keep to the fictional material and an approved tool.

Check your understanding

A citation points to a real guide. What still needs checking?

1. Whether the answer contains enough references
2. Whether the cited passage supports the specific claim
3. Whether the citation makes the paragraph look credible

Workbook

Download the course workbook to record your answer and compare it after the knowledge check.

Further reading

• Elastic: hybrid search
• Elastic: semantic reranking