Separate the claims
Break a passage into checkable statements: mechanism, numerical value, comparison, recommendation and cited evidence. Prioritise the statements that affect the decision. A polished paragraph can mix a well-supported fact with an unjustified inference.
Inspect the underlying evidence
Open the cited source and check that it exists, supports the statement and applies to the stated conditions. Record page or section where useful. Match units, denominator, treatment conditions and observation period. Citation formatting alone provides no assurance of accuracy.
Check the scientific reasoning
Examine whether the proposed chemistry, biology or environmental pathway is coherent. Look for omitted mass streams, conflated removal and destruction, unjustified causal language or results transferred between unlike systems. Mark uncertainty and missing context separately from a demonstrably incorrect claim.
Make the correction reviewable
Use a claim–evidence table with a verdict, correction and reason. Retain the original output, relevant prompt context and model/version information where available. The deliverable should let a project specialist accept, revise or reject consequential statements without repeating the entire review.
| Review field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Claim | The exact consequential statement. |
| Evidence | The supporting passage and applicable conditions. |
| Judgement | Supported, uncertain or requires correction — with reason. |
| Next action | Correction, further evidence or expert decision. |
Example deliverable structure. No client data or project results.
Sources & context
Background reading checked 9 October 2026. The review questions and structures above are BGF editorial guidance; the references are not BGF project evidence or endorsements. Apply them to the relevant site, data and agreed scope.