Start with the article job

Confirm the article's job before checking individual sentences. It should answer a specific search intent, support a priority topic, and help the reader make a decision or understand a concept.

If the article job is vague, fact-checking becomes scattered. The reviewer needs to know which claims matter most and which sections should carry the answer.

Check factual claims

Review these claim types first:

  • Definitions.
  • Statistics.
  • Product claims.
  • Timelines.
  • Legal or medical references.
  • Any statement that could mislead a reader if wrong.

AI drafts often sound confident even when the claim is broad, outdated, or unsupported. Mark those claims before editing for tone.

Visual explanation

A claim stays only when its source supports it

Claim-to-source fact-checking workflow A draft claim is checked against a source for recency, authority, relevance, and exact support, then retained with a citation, rewritten with a boundary, or removed. EXAMPLE EDITORIAL WORKFLOW · NOT AN AUTOMATED TRUTH SCORE 01 Draft claim “AI-assisted content is not penalized merely for using AI.” 02 Primary source Google Search Central Current public guidance Linked beside the claim 03 Support check ✓ Current enough for the claim ✓ Authoritative for Google policy ✓ Supports the exact nearby wording RETAIN + CITE The source supports the claim. Keep the boundary and link visible. REWRITE Narrow what the sentence says. Match the source’s actual scope. REMOVE No support No claim.
The example shows retain, rewrite, and remove decisions. It is not an automated truth score.

Check sources

Prefer primary sources when available. When using secondary sources, check:

  • Credibility.
  • Recency.
  • Whether the source actually supports the claim.

A source should not be decorative. If it does not prove the exact statement being made, the claim needs a stronger source or a narrower rewrite.

Check recency

Some topics age quickly:

  • AI tools.
  • Platform features.
  • Laws.
  • Pricing.
  • Market data.
  • Technical standards.
  • Search guidance.

For time-sensitive claims, use current primary sources or avoid making the claim too specific. The date of the source matters when the fact can change.

Check usefulness

A factually accurate page can still fail if it is generic. Make sure the article answers the buyer question with enough specificity to be useful.

Look for:

  • Examples.
  • Constraints.
  • Decision criteria.
  • Internal links.
  • Practical next steps.

These details make the page more helpful than a broad AI summary.

Prepare the handoff

The final handoff should show:

  • What passed.
  • Which sources were used.
  • Which claims were changed.
  • What still needs client approval.

For SEO content, the same handoff should also include title, meta description, internal links, and CMS notes so the page is ready to publish after approval.

How we sourced this guide

This is practitioner guidance, not a study. It reflects how Gadex runs content production across the sites it operates, checked against the current public documentation of the search and answer engines it describes. There is no proprietary dataset behind it and no sample to cite.

Where a platform’s behaviour is stated, it is drawn from that platform’s own documentation at the time of the update shown above — search and AI systems change without notice, so verify anything you are about to act on. Where a claim could not be supported, it is framed as our practice rather than as fact. See our methodology and editorial standards for how pages are researched, reviewed, and corrected.

Next step

Want Gadex to run this on your site?

We turn guides like this one into a running content pipeline — researched, fact-checked, and shipped to your CMS.

See the SEO content service Book a 15-minute call

Published by Gadex, the SEO and AI-search content service operated by ALPHAOSCAR EURL. Every guide follows our editorial standards — sourced, fact-checked, and reviewed before publishing. About Gadex.