ambacti
Explore workflows

FACTUAL CORRECTNESS REVIEW · Workflow idea

Check whether an answer includes the right facts—and only those facts.

Assess a response against a set of verified facts by identifying information that is supported, information that is added without support, and expected details that are missing. Combine those findings with an overall similarity signal to help prioritize review. Keep individual examples visible because a summary score cannot decide whether a nuance or omission changes the meaning.

Make it yours See how it works ↓
A Roman aqueduct taking shape from architectural sketch to marble.
A little structure. A clearer outcome.
Starts with
A fact-based response needs review
Produces
A fact-by-fact comparison and summary score with the source question and references available for assessment.
Category
Reviews & approvals

01 / The starting point

A clear request.
A useful direction.

A question, a response, and the verified facts expected in a complete answer

“Surface supported, unsupported, and omitted facts in a response while keeping correctness decisions with a qualified reviewer.”
An example request · Make it specific to your team.

02 / The work

5 tasks.
One useful outcome.

Helps teams assess whether a longer, conversational response is accurate and complete against agreed reference facts.

  1. Prepare the verified facts for comparison

    List the reference details that a correct answer should include and keep their trusted sources available.

  2. Identify supported details

    Mark which expected facts are present in the response and preserve the wording that supports each finding.

  3. Find unsupported additions and omissions

    Surface claims that lack support and reference facts that the response leaves out.

  4. Review the combined correctness signal

    Use the overall result to find cases for closer attention while retaining the underlying fact-level evidence.

  5. Resolve the evaluation with a person

    Have a subject-matter reviewer decide whether errors, omissions, or acceptable paraphrases change the answer’s correctness.

03 / The result

Something useful.
Something to build on.

A fact-by-fact comparison and summary score with the source question and references available for assessment.

AmbactiWorkflow folio · 5 steps

Review answer correctness against facts

Reviews & approvals · Example outcome

The handoff

A fact-by-fact comparison and summary score with the source question and references available for assessment.

Keep in mind

Automated classifications and aggregate scores may miss context, partial truths, or important differences in meaning. Have a qualified person inspect the response and each cited reference, resolve uncertain cases, and approve any evaluation conclusion before it affects users, policy, or an external report.

04 / Make it yours

Set the brief.
Set the standard.

A few choices shape the work around your team.

Build a balanced set of reference facts

Include essential points, acceptable paraphrases, and relevant qualifications for each evaluation question.

Agree how evidence will be judged

Set consistent guidance for partial support, contradictions, missing details, and unsupported claims.

Keep source material available to reviewers

Provide the original reference alongside each claim so reviewers can verify the comparison.

Assign subject-matter decision makers

Name who resolves ambiguous findings and approves any conclusions or external communication.

Put your next idea to work.

Start with your brief. Make the process your own.

Explore more workflows ↗