How do I prove an AI writing assistant checked a report's sources?
Make the checking a recorded part of the job: each source the assistant consulted saved as a step with its resolution state, resolved, not resolved, or not checked, beside the report claim it supports. Review the receipt and actual deliverable before accepting a handover.
Source-checking is the step writing assistants are most fluent about and least often made to show. A report can cite twelve sources of which four were opened, three were unreachable, and five were carried in from the model's memory of the world, and the prose will read identically in all twelve cases. The citation list is not evidence of checking; it is evidence of listing.
The recorded job separates the two. Source steps are saved as the research runs, each with the state the check actually reached: resolved means the source was reached and read; not resolved means the attempt failed, for reasons the step carries (a dead link, a block, a paywall); not checked means the citation stands on the assistant's say-so and is labelled as such in the record, where a reviewer can weigh it. Claims in the report then map to source steps, so the reviewer's question changes from "did you check" to "show me claim seven's source step," a question with an answer.
Editors and clients who receive reports this way calibrate trust precisely: a report whose load-bearing claims rest on resolved sources earns a different reading from one whose key figure traces to a not checked step. Both reports exist in the world; only one kind tells you which it is.
Checklist: source-checking that can be shown
1. Source steps: one per source consulted, saved during the research, never reconstructed after. 2. States recorded honestly: resolved, not resolved (with the failure), or not checked. 3. Claim mapping: each load-bearing claim in the report names its source step. 4. Unchecked claims labelled in the record and, where the claim matters, in the report's own notes. 5. Delivery: the report ships with its job record, so the checking trail travels with the text. 6. Review sampling: the editor opens two source steps per report at the verify page, every time, so the habit stays real.
Worked example
The state discipline in a live record: https://zambo.dev/handover/48479a33-d996-4419-a9c8-d1b9a55e62b9 carries its sources as {1 resolved, 1 not_resolved, 1 not_checked}, pinned exactly as checked. A report built on a record of that shape can be challenged claim by claim, and defended the same way, which is all that "sources checked" should ever mean.
Frequently asked questions
Our assistant provides citations with links. Is that not checking?
A citation shows a source was named. Checking means the source was reached and read against the claim, and the state of that attempt recorded. The difference matters most for the citations that fail: dead, moved, or contradicting sources are invisible in a list and unmistakable in a state record.
What do we do with not checked sources the report needs?
Check them, replace them, or label the claim as resting on an unchecked source and let the editor decide with open eyes. All three are professional outcomes; the unprofessional one is the label's absence.
Does this slow writing down materially?
The states are saved as the research runs, as part of the job. The added effort is the honesty, and it is front-loaded: reports built this way survive review faster, because the reviewer's sampling questions already have addresses.
By Brennan Zambo, founder of Zambo.
Last verified: 2026-10-17.
Try a handover
A handover gives your client one proof link with verifiable receipts to review, then Accept or Flag.
try it: say 'use zambo to hand this over to <client>' in your ai