A chatbot has just answered a question about a return, delivery date or subscription feature. Before you rely on that answer, check one thing: does its source support the decision you are about to make?<\/p>\n
This guide shows how to verify chatbot sources for one answer<\/strong>, using three worked examples and a small check record. It is for a visitor checking a reply or a colleague reviewing a specific conversation. For choosing a provider, use our cited-answer buying guide<\/a>; for a repeatable team testing programme, use the citation-audit guide<\/a>.<\/p>\n For the underlying concept and vocabulary, start with our introduction to grounded customer support<\/a>.<\/p>\n Separate the answer into the statement that affects your decision and the conditions attached to it. \u201cYou can return this item within 30 days\u201d contains more than a deadline: it also claims that this particular item is eligible. A genuine link does not prove both parts.<\/p>\n Write down the question and copy the relevant answer before opening the reference. If the reply combines several claims, check them separately. Do not pass the whole answer because its first sentence is correct.<\/p>\n Follow the citation from the same visitor view in which the answer appeared. Can you open the material, identify its owner and find the passage supporting the claim? A help-centre homepage or an unexplained \u201cknowledge base\u201d label leaves that work unfinished.<\/p>\n An internal file reference may be useful to the business without being publicly accessible. If you cannot inspect it, ask the team to confirm the applicable information or provide a suitable public source. A source you cannot open is unverified from your perspective; it is not automatically false.<\/p>\n Look for the product or plan, destination, eligibility, date and exceptions that matter to your question. Check whether the cited page is the current policy rather than an expired promotion or an older document. A recent page date alone does not establish that its contents govern your case.<\/p>\n These are invented teaching examples, not RobiFox test results or statements of any business’s actual terms. Their purpose is to show how an apparently relevant reference can still fail to support an answer.<\/p>\n Use a short record: question \u2192 exact claim \u2192 source URL or document\/version \u2192 relevant passage \u2192 verdict \u2192 next step<\/strong>. Useful verdicts are supported, partly supported, unsupported, and unable to verify. Add a note explaining the missing condition instead of giving an unexplained pass or fail.<\/p>\n For the first example, a completed note could read: \u201cClaim: any item is eligible. Evidence: current returns page excludes clearance items. Verdict: partly supported answer, unsupported eligibility claim. Next step: confirm whether this item is clearance.\u201d This preserves the evidence without pretending that the checker can approve a return.<\/p>\n If the current source supports the relevant claim and its conditions, you have a clearer basis for your decision. If the source is missing, inaccessible or contradictory, keep the uncertainty visible. A chatbot explaining a policy has not necessarily accessed your account, changed an order or authorised an exception.<\/p>\n A useful response may therefore explain the supported part and identify what still needs a person. See our guide to unsupported questions<\/a> for examples of that next step. Teams finding the same failure repeatedly can take the record into their ongoing citation audit<\/a>, rather than treating every conversation as a separate repair.<\/p>\n RobiFox provides source references and conversation-review controls<\/a>. Use the free website preview<\/a> as a first look at your own content, then inspect an actual answer beside its source. The preview covers up to 10 website pages with email confirmation; it is not a PDF or Excel upload test. A citation is something to inspect, not a guarantee of correctness.<\/p>\n Cover image: AI-generated editorial illustration, not a product screenshot or a real customer case.<\/small><\/p>\n1. Name the claim you need to check<\/h2>\n
2. Open the reference and find the supporting passage<\/h2>\n
3. Compare the important conditions<\/h2>\n
\n
\n \nSource and chatbot reply<\/th>\n What the check finds<\/th>\n Useful next step<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n Source: unused items may be returned within 30 days; clearance items are excluded. Reply: \u201cAny item can be returned within 30 days.\u201d<\/td>\n The deadline matches, but \u201cany item\u201d drops a material exclusion. The full claim is unsupported.<\/td>\n Read the eligibility rule for the actual item; ask the business if its classification is unclear.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Source: dispatch normally takes two working days; transit time depends on destination. Reply: \u201cYour order will arrive in two days.\u201d<\/td>\n Dispatch has become a delivery promise. The source does not establish an arrival date.<\/td>\n Find destination-specific delivery information or request an actual order update through the business’s authorised channel.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Source: the Pro plan includes exports, with no statement about API access. Reply: \u201cPro includes API access.\u201d<\/td>\n A related feature does not prove the requested feature. The API claim has no support in this passage.<\/td>\n Check the current API documentation or ask the team to confirm the requirement before buying.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n 4. Record a verdict that matches the evidence<\/h2>\n
5. Decide whether you can act on the answer<\/h2>\n
Try the check with your own website<\/h2>\n