Check an AI summary against its source.

A shorter paragraph can make a promise nobody made.

Check the important claims against the exact source, then check what the summary leaves out. A fluent paragraph is not the same thing as a faithful one.

This exercise shows how to review a short summary of planning notes. Read the source and deliberately flawed draft, try to identify the problems, then open the six explanations. Finish with a repaired version and a checklist for your own work.

Fictional teaching example. The people, event, notes, and drafts below are invented. The flawed draft was written to demonstrate errors; it is not a captured response from a particular AI model, a benchmark, or a report of Nolan's personal results.

Keep the original within reach.

Task: summarize these notes for the organizers deciding what still needs to happen. Do not turn proposals into commitments or create a public invitation.

1. S1. Draft plan for a neighborhood repair afternoon. This is a proposal, not a confirmed event.
2. S2. The library room has been requested for 14 November, 2 to 4 p.m.; booking confirmation is still pending.
3. S3. Mara can bring basic hand tools if transport is arranged. Nobody has volunteered to arrange it.
4. S4. We discussed a $5 materials contribution. No amount has been agreed and attendance will not depend on payment.
5. S5. Sam offered to draft an invitation after the room is confirmed. They have not agreed to send it.
6. S6. Keep volunteers' phone numbers in the private organizer list; do not add them to the public invitation.
7. S7. No sign-up deadline has been decided.

These numbered passages are the complete source for this exercise. In real work, also record the source's version and scope. A summary of one page should not quietly become a summary of an entire document.

Return to the claim checks after following a source reference.

Which claims would change someone's next action?

Deliberately flawed draft, not instructions to follow:

The repair afternoon is confirmed for 14 November, 2 to 4 p.m. Mara will bring tools. Everyone must pay $5. Sam will send the invitation. Sign up by 10 November.

Before opening the answers, compare the event status, each person's commitment, the cost, and the deadline. Then look for a restriction missing from the summary entirely. No answers are entered or collected on this page.

Some copied details are right: the proposed date and time match S2. That does not rescue the invented confirmation. Review a sentence at the level of each claim, not as a single all-right or all-wrong unit.

Six problems, each tied to the source.

Open any check. The links take you to the exact passage, not an unrelated page that merely discusses the topic.

One repaired version.

Proposed repair afternoon: 14 November, 2 to 4 p.m., subject to room confirmation. Mara can bring tools if transport is arranged; transport is unassigned. A $5 contribution was discussed but not agreed, and attendance is not conditional on payment. Sam offered to draft an invitation after the booking is confirmed, not to send it. No sign-up deadline is set. Keep volunteer phone numbers out of the public invitation.

This is longer than the flawed draft because the conditions matter. The goal is not minimum word count. It is enough context for the intended reader to avoid the wrong next action.

What this establishes: a corrected representation of the supplied fictional notes. What it does not establish: that a real room is available, the notes themselves are true or current, anyone has approved the plan, or an invitation may be sent. Source fidelity, external truth, and permission are three separate checks.

A review sequence for your own summary.

1. Fix the purpose and scope. Name the audience, the source version, and what the summary will help them decide. Locate a readable original before generating anything.
2. Split consequential sentences into claims. Check who, what, when, how much, under which conditions, with what certainty, and with whose permission.
3. Find the exact support. Record the relevant passage, not just the document title or a link. Mark unsupported and contradicted claims instead of smoothing them into plausible language.
4. Review the omissions. Look for exceptions, dependencies, unresolved questions, and sharing restrictions that would change the reader's next action.
5. Repair, then compare again. A rewrite can introduce a new error. Check the changed claims against the source and keep unresolved points visible.
6. Decide separately whether to use it. Verify external facts and current details where needed, obtain approval, and match the review depth to the consequences. Stop or ask when you cannot resolve an important claim.

For a short source, a direct read and your own note may be less work than generating and checking a summary. For a long source, record which sections you actually reviewed. A small spot-check is not evidence that the entire summary is accurate.

Compare this draft only with the source passages I provide.
For each material claim, quote the exact supporting passage and its label.
Mark it supported, contradicted, not supported, or missing a condition.
Check numbers, dates, people, conditions, certainty, and permissions.
List consequential omissions separately. Do not fill gaps with guesses.
Propose repairs separately from the original source and draft.

Use material you are permitted to share, and remove private details before putting it into a service. This page has no text-entry box, upload, connected model, or automatic accuracy score.

Keep a source-review checklist.

Save the blank summary-review checklist (.txt). Use one claim record at a time in your own notes. The complete download is visible below; it contains no completed answers.

SOURCE-TO-SUMMARY REVIEW
Nolan Kido | https://nolankido.com/technology/check-ai-summary/
Blank worksheet. Complete it in your own notes, not on this website.

PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE
[What will this summary be used for, and who may read it?]

SOURCE
[Title or location, version/date, and the exact section reviewed.]
[Am I allowed to share this material with the tool and intended audience?]

ONE RECORD PER MATERIAL CLAIM
Claim in the draft:
Exact supporting source passage and its location:
Status: supported / contradicted / not supported / missing condition
What changed: person / action / number / date / condition / certainty / permission
Correction or question:

OMISSIONS
[Which source conditions or restrictions would change a reader's next action?]
[What can be left out without changing the meaning for this audience?]

REPAIRED SUMMARY
[Retain conditions, uncertainty, and the difference between ideas and agreements.]

THREE SEPARATE CHECKS
Source fidelity: [Does the summary accurately represent the reviewed source?]
External truth/currentness: [What needs independent verification? What is unresolved?]
Permission/approval: [Who must approve the use, sharing, or action?]

DECISION
[Revise / ask a question / hold / ready for the stated limited use.]
[Remaining uncertainty, reviewer and review date, and where the source is kept.]

No score here certifies accuracy or grants permission. A faithful summary can
repeat a mistaken or outdated source. Do not publish or act without the checks
and approval appropriate to the consequence. Keep completed copies private.

Before generation, define the task and checks in an AI task brief. When the source is difficult to find, locate the document before summarizing it. Afterwards, include review and repairs in the time comparison.

About this guide and its sources

Prepared with AI assistance. The exercise, flaws, annotations, and repaired draft were authored for this guide. The source notes above are the evidence for its claim-level comparisons; they are not real meeting records or a model evaluation.

For context on source links, Google's explanation of sources and related links in Gemini describes links that can include material related to a response. That product explanation is not evidence for this fictional event and is not an endorsement of a service. For the wider reasoning, read why a working tool is not necessarily a trustworthy one.

About Nolan Kido · Send a correction or a question about this guide