Fact-check claims before recording your video

Separate factual claims from writing choices

Read the draft sentence by sentence and mark the statements a source could support or contradict. A statement about what a report found needs evidence. A proposed example you wrote needs a clear hypothetical label. A suggestion such as “keep a source note beside the draft” is a production method you can explain without inventing a study that proves it works. Keep these categories visible in your review notes.

Split a sentence that contains several claims. “The group tested ten items, everyone preferred the labels, and the method saves time” contains a count, an opinion attributed to people and a performance assertion. A report of ten labelled objects would not automatically support the other two parts. Smaller claim units make it easier to see which words need evidence and which should be removed before recording.

Trace the sentence back to its original support

Save the exact proposed wording, source URL, author or organization, publication or update date where available, and the passage that supports it. Follow citations through summaries to the original material when possible. AAP’s fact-checking guidance recommends finding the original report or research and checking whether it actually supports the claim, including its context and current relevance.

Read around the matching passage. Check whether the source describes a completed result, a proposal, an early trial or someone’s expectation. Look for conditions elsewhere on the page that change the sentence’s meaning. A statement about a proposed feature should not become “the product now does this” merely because a summary uses confident language. If the original is unavailable, record that limit instead of presenting a search snippet as a full source review.

Check who, when, where and how much

Compare the scope of the sentence with the scope of the evidence. Who or what was included? When did it happen? Which version, location or set of conditions applied? If the source gives a number, identify what it counts and what total it belongs to. An observation about objects should not quietly become a claim about people, and an old announcement should not establish current availability.

Keep qualifiers beside the claim until you decide how to express them naturally. “In this small pilot” or “for the version described” can matter more than an appealing adjective. If those conditions make the claim irrelevant to the viewer’s question, remove the claim rather than hiding its limits. A shorter factual sentence can be stronger editorially when it accurately states the small thing the evidence establishes.

Work through an invented workshop note

Imagine a fictional workshop note headed “Label trial, one afternoon.” It says ten empty storage boxes were inspected at closing: eight had matching labels on the lid and base, and two did not. It reports no timing comparison and records no participant preference. This note, its workshop and its counts are invented solely for the exercise. They are not real findings or a source you should cite outside the example.

The draft line “Everyone found the new labels faster” is unsupported by that note. It describes people and speed, neither of which the imagined note measured. “The label method works for every box” also goes beyond the evidence: two boxes in the example did not have matching labels. “Eight of the ten boxes had matching lid and base labels at the closing inspection” stays within the fictional observation.

If you choose to express the count as a percentage, eight divided by ten is eighty percent of that invented set. It is not eighty percent of volunteers, all workshops or future uses. Ask whether the percentage adds clarity compared with the original count. Here, “eight of ten boxes” leaves the small denominator immediately visible. Keep the two unmatched boxes in the explanation if their existence affects the point you are making.

Compare independent evidence rather than page counts

When several pages repeat a claim, follow their references. Three summaries citing the same workshop note are three pages but one underlying observation. Record the relationship so a reader or reviewer can distinguish corroboration from repetition. A primary source also needs evaluation: an organization can accurately describe its own announcement while having an interest in how that announcement is presented.

AFP describes its fact-checking method as requiring at least two independent information sources for the central claim, and withholding a fact-check when evidence is not strong and cross-checked. That is AFP’s newsroom standard, not certification of this worksheet. For your script, the useful question is whether the evidence is sufficient for the exact assertion and its stakes. If it is not, narrow the line, seek more evidence or hold it.

Decide retain, narrow, attribute or hold

Give each factual sentence an explicit outcome. Retain means the wording fits the evidence you checked. Narrow means removing an unsupported generalization or restoring a missing condition. Attribute means accurately describing what an identified source says while keeping clear that the attribution itself does not independently prove the assertion. Hold means the unresolved claim is not ready to record as fact.

For the fictional workshop, retain the closing count with its context, narrow any universal success language and hold the unmeasured speed claim. If you later obtain a separate account, inspect what that account establishes before changing the decision. A person saying they liked the labels may support their stated preference; it does not measure everyone’s speed. Do not fill an empty evidence field with a plausible statement just to finish the script.

Carry checked meaning into the recorded version

After rewriting, compare the final spoken copy with the claim notes again. Watch for a qualified line becoming stronger during rehearsal. Keep the source and checked date with the exact wording so a later update can be traced. Use the names and numbers workflow to prepare delivery after the underlying details are settled. For client work, the UGC brief guide helps identify who must resolve missing evidence or approve changed wording.

Before release, listen to the recorded factual lines and compare them with the checked copy. Record any correction needed, the affected take and the replacement wording. This process does not establish expertise for consequential claims; those need suitable specialist review outside this ordinary creator example. EasyLines is preparing to launch as a teleprompter and recorder. Join the waitlist for launch updates if keeping checked words near the camera suits your workflow. Evidence decisions remain part of your editorial preparation.