A source link is not proof: reviewing citations in AI answers
Check that citations in AI answers support the exact claim, apply to the current situation and are accessible to the intended reader.
An AI answer with links can look well supported even when a cited document says something different. Citations help reviewers inspect an answer; they do not replace the inspection.
Review the relationship between the claim and the source.
Check the exact statement
Open the source and find the passage that supports the claim. A page about a feature does not establish that the feature is included in every plan. A roadmap mention does not establish that it has shipped.
Separate direct evidence from inference. If the assistant combines several facts to reach a conclusion, ask it to show that reasoning and label the conclusion accordingly.
Check scope and time
A source can support a claim for one customer, region or product version without supporting it everywhere. Check effective dates, exceptions and whether a newer authoritative record supersedes the source.
If the answer describes a historical decision, use the record that applied at the time. If it recommends an action today, use the current record. These are different questions even when they involve the same policy.
Match the review to the consequence
For a casual internal draft, checking a sample of low-impact claims may be reasonable. Verify consequential commitments and uncertain claims directly before acting on them.
Also check the audience's access. A private document link should not be included in an external answer merely because the assistant can retrieve it. Provide an approved public source or an appropriate explanation instead.
When a citation fails, correct both the answer and the process that produced it. The useful output is an answer whose important claims can be traced to relevant evidence, not a paragraph decorated with links.