Everyday AI · Module 4

Open the source and inspect the passage

Suggested time: 8 minutes.

A citation identifies a source so someone can inspect it. A source label, title, author, date, page number or link can help you find evidence. The citation may still be invented, inaccurate or irrelevant. A fabricated citation contains made-up source details. A real publication can also be cited for something it never says. You cannot reliably distinguish these problems from the formatting alone.

A primary source is an original record or first-hand publication for the claim being checked. A venue's booking confirmation is primary evidence for that booking. A product provider's own help page is primary documentation for its stated product controls. The provider's page would not establish a separate claim about the Willow Team's attendance.

Start with the original source where possible. A search preview or another site's summary may omit a condition. A working link proves that a page opens; it does not prove that the page supports the sentence beside it.

Five source checks

1. Creator: Who wrote, issued or published this record? Is that source in a position to know this particular fact? If no personal author is named, record the organisation rather than inventing a name.
2. Date and status: When was it created or updated? Is it a proposal, draft, approval or replacement? An access date tells you when you looked, not when the source was written.
3. Context: Which product, event, population, account type or conditions does the source cover? Does that match the claim?
4. Relevant passage: Find the words, table entry or calculation inputs that bear on the claim. Read nearby qualifications as well as the attractive sentence.
5. Fit: Does the passage support the exact wording? Does the claim say more, omit a condition or turn an estimate into a promise?

A later date can matter, but “newer” alone does not mean “authoritative.” A later unapproved draft does not automatically replace an earlier signed approval. Look for an explicit correction, approval or replacement instruction.

The public source used in this module

Open OpenAI's data-controls help page (https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7730893-data-controls-in-chatgpt). Inspect the publisher, date information and the section about saved chats. You are reading documentation; do not change any setting.

The narrow point to check is whether disabling model training erases saved conversations. The documentation says it does not. This does not establish that a chat is confidential or that workplace information is permitted in the tool. Training choices, deletion and permission to share are different questions.

The guided exercise supplies a source card with a short verified passage. When you do the live check, record what the page actually shows on your access date. Product documentation can change; never copy an old access date and describe it as your own check.

When a reference cannot be verified

An answer might cite “Willow Workshop Outcomes, page 18” with no identifiable publisher, document or retrievable link. Do not complete the citation from imagination or replace it with an unrelated article that sounds similar.

Record the missing evidence. If the task permits further research, try to locate the original publication and exact passage. If you cannot verify it, leave the claim unresolved and exclude it from factual briefing text. Failure to find a reference is not proof that no such publication exists anywhere.

Pause: An official source opens correctly but discusses chat history, while the claim is about workshop attendance. What has the working link established?