Verify Sources in an AI Assistant Answer
Design a source-review experience that lets a professional test important claims, inspect supporting material, and correct an answer before reuse.
The brief
Understand the problem
Background
A fluent assistant response can combine supported facts, weak inferences, and outdated material in the same paragraph. A list of links is not enough when people cannot tell which source supports which claim or whether sources disagree.
User context
Mira is preparing an internal market brief. The assistant summarizes a competitor's pricing and launch regions, but one claim cites an old press article while another has no visible support.
Product problem
A reviewer needs to audit important claims efficiently and preserve their corrections without assuming that citation presence equals source quality or factual accuracy.
Objective
Create answer review, claim-to-source inspection, correction, and approved-export states for one research response.
What to design
Define the experience
Required experience
- See which claims have direct, partial, conflicting, or missing support
- Open the relevant source passage with date and provenance
- Mark a claim verified, revise it, or remove it with a reason
- Export only the reviewed answer with its source record
Screens and states
- Answer review
- Claim and source inspector
- Revision workspace
- Reviewed export
Core user flow
Follow the critical path
- 01
Mira opens the response and filters to pricing and launch claims
- 02
She selects the pricing claim and compares the cited press article with a newer official page
- 03
She replaces the outdated value and records why the source changed
- 04
She removes the unsupported regional claim rather than leaving an unlabeled gap
- 05
The exported brief shows review status, source links, and the date of verification
Product rules
Requirements and constraints
Requirements
- Map citations to the smallest meaningful claim rather than only the paragraph
- Show source publisher, date, content type, access state, and quoted context
- Represent direct support, partial support, conflict, and missing evidence distinctly
- Preserve the original response and every human revision in version history
- Prevent an unreviewed section from inheriting the status of reviewed claims
Constraints
- Some sources may be inaccessible, changed, or removed after the answer was created
- Citation formatting cannot substitute for judging source relevance and authority
- Quoted source excerpts must stay within access and reuse permissions
Reality check
States worth considering
Ready-to-use content
Mock data
Use this content to test hierarchy and realistic data states. You can expand it when the concept needs more depth.
Claims
- Starter plan costs $24 per month
- Service launched in six regions
- Annual billing includes a 15% discount
- Enterprise pricing requires contact
Review states
- Direct support
- Partial support
- Conflicting sources
- No source
Finish line
What to deliver
- Four responsive screens showing claim-level review, source conflict, revision, and approved export
Optional direction
Visual resources
Use these as a starting constraint if you want one. They are not part of the required solution.
Waiting for the Sunrise & Rock Salt
Clear interface writing gives people the confidence to understand what changed and decide what to do next.
Waiting for the Sunrise & Rock Salt
Clear interface writing gives people the confidence to understand what changed and decide what to do next.