Give an assistant a brand brief and ask a question that the brief does not answer. A fluent response can look like a policy even when it is only a plausible guess.
Here is a small, fictional coffee-brand exercise. The entire source packet says:
Write in plain, welcoming language. Describe the drink and its preparation without health claims. Use close photographs of the drink in natural light. The brand owner must approve product information before publication.
Now ask whether a reseller may print the logo on its own packaging. The document contains no partner-logo policy. “Yes, with clear space around the logo” might sound reasonable, but it is unsupported.
Use a more explicit request: answer only from this packet; quote the supporting sentence for every factual claim; when it does not answer, write “Not in the document” and name the missing input.
The accepted response to the packaging question is: “Not in the document. Ask the owner for the approved partner-logo policy.” The source can support a photography rule. It cannot authorize packaging.
Keep three columns during review: proposed claim, exact source passage and decision. A missing passage becomes a question for the owner rather than a sentence in the final draft. Check quotations yourself; the instruction does not guarantee compliance.
This is an original teaching demonstration, not a client story or a measured model experiment. Its useful result is the evidence map, not a claim that one prompt eliminates hallucinations.
The complete example and downloadable worksheet show how to repeat the check. You can also try a guest AI exercise.
Top comments (0)