Checking AI explanations

An AI assistant explains a fictional school’s backup plan: “The archive is encrypted, so it can always be restored.” The sentence is fluent and reassuring. It also connects two properties that do not guarantee one another. Reviewing an explanation is easier when you stop judging the whole paragraph and examine its individual claims.

Identify the kind of claim

A definition explains a concept: encryption protects confidentiality under stated assumptions. A product statement describes documented behavior: a particular release supports an export feature. A system statement describes what actually happened: this school’s recovery test succeeded. These claims require different evidence.

A cryptographic standard can explain an algorithm but cannot prove that the school preserved its key. A product manual can describe a recovery function but cannot establish that anyone used it successfully. An assistant should not move silently from “the feature exists” to “your system is protected.”

Make the claim small enough to check. Replace “the backup is safe” with questions about retained records, usable keys, authorized recovery, and the evidence of a restore. This does not require investigating a real system; our invented example already shows why the original conclusion is too broad.

Follow the reference to the relevant passage

A citation has to do more than look official. Check that the source exists, comes from the stated author, and supports the specific sentence. Then inspect its version, date, scope, and assumptions. A document about one release may not describe another release’s defaults. A valid general recommendation may still require local configuration.

Several pages repeating the same unsupported statement are not necessarily independent confirmation. Prefer primary documentation or research for technical mechanisms, then connect it to the actual question. An older foundational paper can remain useful; a newer date alone does not make a source more relevant or correct.

Try one harmless counterexample

For our archive, imagine that the encrypted copy is intact but its only decryption key was lost. Confidentiality may survive while recovery fails. That counterexample disproves “encryption always guarantees restoration” without revealing private information or running any software.

PredictThe assistant opens a genuine manual describing backup support. May it now say the school’s recovery was tested?

No. The manual documents a capability. A completed recovery claim needs evidence of that event, including what was restored and whether the result met the intended need.

Counterexamples are useful for checking absolute words such as always, never, or automatically. They do not prove the opposite universal claim. Finding one failed recovery does not mean encryption prevents all recovery; it identifies an assumption the explanation omitted.

Rewrite for understanding, not just confidence

A better answer says: “Encryption can protect the archive’s confidentiality. Recovery also requires usable keys, intact data, compatible software, and a working process. The description provided does not establish whether recovery was tested.” This is more useful because it separates supported information from missing evidence.

Ask an assistant to explain its assumptions, identify relevant sources, and revise when evidence disagrees. Its account of how it reached an answer is itself generated text, not an execution log. If a tool action matters, inspect the actual result and permissions. You can benefit from a clear explanation while keeping the standard of evidence appropriate to the decision.