Try eight job listings, four company entries, and four news summaries with errors. Four more drafts are accurate. Read the sources before opening an answer.
All 20 cases are made up. The names, source text, dates, and errors are for practice. Four drafts are already accurate. The worksheet will not find errors for you. Read the sources, then compare your work with the answer key.
Fictional practice · J01
Invented salary
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a current job listing that sends readers to the right employer opening.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: People deciding whether, where, and how to apply for a job.
Fictional source packet
practice-J01-source-1: Test Fixture Technician | CI-217
Identity
Employer: Cindercoil Instruments. Role: Test Fixture Technician. Requisition: CI-217.
Work and qualifications
Full-time employment. On-site work in Mesa, Arizona. At least one year of hands-on electronics assembly experience is required.
Tasks include assembling test fixtures and recording inspection results.
Status
This opening is accepting applications as of October 6, 2026. Apply from this requisition page.
End of supplied vacancy page.
Publisher: Cindercoil Instruments Scenario source date: 2026-10-01 Where to find it: Vacancy page: Identity, Work and qualifications, and Status sections; complete supplied page Source origin: fictional-cindercoil-instruments Fictional reference: https://cindercoil-instruments.example/careers/CI-217
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. The full job page has no pay field or amount. This tells us only what this posting says. Other employer material might state pay. The opening status applies only to the review date in this case.
Draft to review
Cindercoil Instruments lists a Test Fixture Technician opening under requisition CI-217. This is a full-time, on-site position in Mesa, Arizona. The published salary is $68,000 to $78,000 a year. At least one year of hands-on electronics assembly experience is required. The employer marks CI-217 open on October 6, 2026.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep the draft on Hold because no source supports its pay range. Keep the job terms that have support. Replace the made-up pay with a statement about what this posting does not say. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-J01-claim-1
Original claim: Cindercoil Instruments lists a Test Fixture Technician opening under requisition CI-217.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J01-source-1; Identity: employer, role, and requisition.
The employer, job title, and job ID name the same opening. A similar title alone would not prove that a source is about this job.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Cindercoil Instruments lists a Test Fixture Technician opening under requisition CI-217.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-J01-claim-2
Original claim: This is a full-time, on-site position in Mesa, Arizona.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J01-source-1; Work and qualifications: first two sentences.
The job type, work schedule, and city match the posting. Each could change whether someone applies, so each is Material.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: This is a full-time, on-site position in Mesa, Arizona.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-J01-claim-3
Original claim: The published salary is $68,000 to $78,000 a year.
Support: not backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J01-source-1; Complete supplied vacancy page: no compensation field or figure.
The right employer posting is a good source for stated pay, but it gives no salary. Even a current, suitable source may not support a number. Do not treat the made-up range as an estimate or a promise from the employer.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: The supplied employer posting does not state salary or hourly pay.
Check again: Remove the made-up range from every place it appears, including headings and pay fields. Read the full posting to check the statement about missing pay. Check the final text again. Limit the finding to this posting.
practice-J01-claim-4
Original claim: At least one year of hands-on electronics assembly experience is required.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J01-source-1; Work and qualifications: experience requirement.
The draft keeps the required length and kind of hands-on experience. Calling it preferred would change who qualifies.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: At least one year of hands-on electronics assembly experience is required.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-J01-claim-5
Original claim: The employer marks CI-217 open on October 6, 2026.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J01-source-1; Status: accepting applications as of October 6, 2026.
The date limits the claim that the job is open. It does not promise that the job stays open after that date.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: The employer marks CI-217 open on October 6, 2026.
Check again: Check that the open status is for CI-217 and keep the review date. For a real listing on a later date, check the employer page again before saying the job is open.
One supported final draft
Cindercoil Instruments lists a Test Fixture Technician opening under requisition CI-217. This is a full-time, on-site position in Mesa, Arizona. At least one year of hands-on electronics assembly experience is required. The supplied employer posting does not state salary or hourly pay. The employer marks CI-217 open on October 6, 2026.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until the required evidence and checks are complete, every kept Material claim is covered, and each needed fix or removal has been checked again., Choose Ready for human approval after saving the corrected version, its evidence, and the full list of Material claims and their checks. A named human must still make the approval decision., Choose Withdraw or reject if the publisher cannot fix the Material issue for this use..
Other reasonable answers
Leave out the pay sentence. Leave the pay field blank or mark it Unknown. Check that no made-up amount remains.
Another suitable pay source could support a new claim. It must describe the same role and be labeled clearly. This case gives you no such source.
Remaining issues
The answer key lists no other issue. You still need to finish your own check.
Lesson: If a field has no value, do not fill it with a number that sounds right. Removing made-up pay is a fix. Check that the final text really removes it.
Fictional practice · J02
Changed work arrangement
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a current job listing that sends readers to the right employer opening.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: People deciding whether, where, and how to apply for a job.
Fictional source packet
practice-J02-source-1: Automation Support Specialist | FL-302
Role
Fennec Loop Robotics is accepting applications for Automation Support Specialist, requisition FL-302, as of October 6, 2026.
Workplace
Hybrid role based in Tucson, Arizona. Three days each week at our Tucson workplace and two days working remotely. The employee must be able to commute to the Tucson workplace.
Employment
Full-time employment. The role supports customer deployments during Arizona daytime business hours.
Publisher: Fennec Loop Robotics Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Vacancy page: Role, Workplace, and Employment sections Source origin: fictional-fennec-loop-robotics Fictional reference: https://fennec-loop-robotics.example/careers/FL-302
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. These terms apply only to FL-302. Hybrid work does not mean someone may work fully remotely or from any Arizona city.
Draft to review
Fennec Loop Robotics is hiring an Automation Support Specialist under requisition FL-302. The job is fully remote and open to applicants anywhere in Arizona without a commute requirement. This is a full-time position supporting customer deployments during Arizona daytime business hours.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep Hold because the draft changes a hybrid job in Tucson into fully remote work from anywhere in Arizona. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-J02-claim-1
Original claim: Fennec Loop Robotics is hiring an Automation Support Specialist under requisition FL-302.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J02-source-1; Role: employer, title, requisition, and open status.
The draft names the correct current opening in this case.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Fennec Loop Robotics is hiring an Automation Support Specialist under requisition FL-302.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-J02-claim-2
Original claim: The job is fully remote and open to applicants anywhere in Arizona without a commute requirement.
Support: sources disagreeRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J02-source-1; Workplace: hybrid Tucson arrangement and commute requirement.
The source says three days at the workplace, so fully remote is wrong. This change could cause someone to apply for a job or plan a move that does not fit their needs.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: The job is hybrid in Tucson, Arizona, with three workplace days and two remote days each week; the employee must be able to commute to Tucson.
Check again: Compare the city, days at the workplace, remote days, and commute rule with the Workplace section. Remove fully remote labels from every field. Record a new check of the corrected text.
practice-J02-claim-3
Original claim: This is a full-time position supporting customer deployments during Arizona daytime business hours.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J02-source-1; Employment: both sentences.
These job terms match the source. They may stay after review.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: This is a full-time position supporting customer deployments during Arizona daytime business hours.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
One supported final draft
Fennec Loop Robotics is hiring an Automation Support Specialist under requisition FL-302. The full-time role is hybrid in Tucson, Arizona, with three workplace days and two remote days each week; the employee must be able to commute to Tucson. It supports customer deployments during Arizona daytime business hours.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until the required evidence and checks are complete, every kept Material claim is covered, and each needed fix or removal has been checked again., Choose Ready for human approval after saving the corrected version, its evidence, and the full list of Material claims and their checks. A named human must still make the approval decision., Choose Withdraw or reject if the publisher cannot fix the Material issue for this use..
Other reasonable answers
A shorter label such as "Hybrid in Tucson; three workplace days weekly" can work if the commute rule stays visible in the listing or right beside its terms.
Remaining issues
The answer key lists no other issue. You still need to finish your own check.
Lesson: The city, remote-work rule, and commute rule each matter. A broad remote label cannot replace the actual schedule.
Fictional practice · J03
Wrong employer
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a current job listing that sends readers to the right employer opening.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: People deciding whether, where, and how to apply for a job.
Tenant: mica-tern. Employer: Mica Tern Automation.
Role: Controls Engineer. Requisition: MT-084. Status: Open on October 6, 2026.
Location and arrangement: Chandler, Arizona; full-time, on-site.
Apply destination: https://roles-lantern.example/tenants/mica-tern/jobs/MT-084/apply
Publisher: Mica Tern Automation Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Tenant header, role details, and Apply destination Source origin: fictional-mica-tern-employer Fictional reference: https://roles-lantern.example/tenants/mica-tern/jobs/MT-084
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This case names mica-tern as the hiring account approved by the employer. The hiring platform serves more than one employer.
Tenant: oriole-flux. Employer: Oriole Flux Fabrication.
Role: Controls Engineer. Requisition: OF-084. Status: Open on October 6, 2026.
Location and arrangement: Phoenix, Arizona; full-time, on-site.
Apply destination: https://roles-lantern.example/tenants/oriole-flux/jobs/OF-084/apply
Publisher: Oriole Flux Fabrication Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Tenant header, role details, and Apply destination Source origin: fictional-oriole-flux-employer Fictional reference: https://roles-lantern.example/tenants/oriole-flux/jobs/OF-084
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This is a different employer and job ID, even though the job title and hiring platform are the same.
Draft to review
Mica Tern Automation is hiring a Controls Engineer under requisition OF-084. The role is full-time and on-site in Chandler, Arizona. Apply through https://roles-lantern.example/tenants/oriole-flux/jobs/OF-084/apply
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep Hold because the draft mixes one employer's description with another employer's job ID and application link. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-J03-claim-1
Original claim: Mica Tern Automation is hiring a Controls Engineer under requisition OF-084.
Support: partly backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J03-source-1, practice-J03-source-2; Both sources: tenant, employer, title, and requisition.
Source 1 gives this employer and title. But job ID OF-084 belongs to the other employer in source 2. The same title does not make them the same job.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: Mica Tern Automation is hiring a Controls Engineer under requisition MT-084.
Check again: Check the employer, its approved hiring account, and the job ID together against source 1. Remove OF-084 from the record, page details, and final text.
practice-J03-claim-2
Original claim: The role is full-time and on-site in Chandler, Arizona.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J03-source-1; Role details: location and arrangement.
The location and work schedule belong to the intended Mica Tern job. Keep them linked to MT-084. Do not use them for the other employer.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: The role is full-time and on-site in Chandler, Arizona.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-J03-claim-3
Original claim: Apply through https://roles-lantern.example/tenants/oriole-flux/jobs/OF-084/apply
Support: sources disagreeRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J03-source-1, practice-J03-source-2; Both sources: Apply destination.
This application link goes to the Oriole Flux account and job ID. A link that works on a shared platform may still lead to the wrong job.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: Apply through https://roles-lantern.example/tenants/mica-tern/jobs/MT-084/apply
Check again: Match the corrected link to the intended employer's Apply link and hiring account. In a real check, follow the employer's link and any redirect before recording where it ends.
One supported final draft
Mica Tern Automation is hiring a Controls Engineer under requisition MT-084. The role is full-time and on-site in Chandler, Arizona. Apply through https://roles-lantern.example/tenants/mica-tern/jobs/MT-084/apply
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until the required evidence and checks are complete, every kept Material claim is covered, and each needed fix or removal has been checked again., Choose Ready for human approval after saving the corrected version, its evidence, and the full list of Material claims and their checks. A named human must still make the approval decision., Choose Withdraw or reject if the publisher cannot fix the Material issue for this use..
Other reasonable answers
You could write a separate Oriole Flux listing if that is the intended employer. Review it using its own identity and Phoenix terms throughout. Do not just change the name on the mixed record.
Remaining issues
The answer key lists no other issue. You still need to finish your own check.
Lesson: On a shared hiring site, check the employer, hiring account, and job ID together. Similar titles are a reason to check more closely. They do not prove two jobs are the same.
Fictional practice · J04
Expired opening
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Put this record on the current jobs board and invite people to apply on October 6, 2026. Do not use it as an archive or a historical note.
Date or period: Jobs open on October 6, 2026, Arizona time.
Audience: People deciding whether, where, and how to apply for a job.
Fictional source packet
practice-J04-source-1: Preserved vacancy page: Process Technician | BG-122
Role
Brindle Gauge Systems lists Process Technician, requisition BG-122.
Work
Full-time, on-site role in Chandler, Arizona.
Applications
Applications are being accepted through the BG-122 application page.
Preserved page date: September 21, 2026. This is an archived copy, not a current status page.
Publisher: Brindle Gauge Systems Scenario source date: 2026-09-21 Where to find it: Preserved September 21 vacancy: Role, Work, and Applications Source origin: fictional-brindle-gauge-systems Fictional reference: https://brindle-gauge-systems.example/archive/2026-09-21/BG-122
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This is a dated copy of made-up evidence. It shows what the posting said on September 21. It does not show whether the job is open now.
practice-J04-source-2: Current requisition status | BG-122
Employer: Brindle Gauge Systems. Requisition: BG-122.
Closed date: September 30, 2026.
Status on October 6, 2026: Closed. This requisition is no longer accepting applications.
Publisher: Brindle Gauge Systems Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Status record: Closed date and current application status Source origin: fictional-brindle-gauge-systems Fictional reference: https://brindle-gauge-systems.example/careers/BG-122/status
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This source says BG-122 closed in this case. It does not show whether another job with a similar title is open.
Draft to review
The September 21 employer posting lists Process Technician BG-122 at Brindle Gauge Systems. That posting describes a full-time, on-site role in Chandler, Arizona. That posting says applications are being accepted through the BG-122 application page.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep Hold for use on a current jobs board. The draft matches the old posting, but newer evidence says the job closed. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-J04-claim-1
Original claim: The September 21 employer posting lists Process Technician BG-122 at Brindle Gauge Systems.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: too old for this date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J04-source-1; Preserved vacancy: Role and preserved page date.
This sentence correctly names an old posting. But placing it on a current jobs board would invite people to apply now. Source 2 says it later closed. The old statement cannot support that current use.
Proposed action: qualified.
Suggested wording: Historical listing: Brindle Gauge Systems listed Process Technician BG-122 on September 21, 2026.
Check again: Remove this record from the current jobs board, or change its use to a historical note. Check the role against source 1 and the closure against source 2. Review the full new context.
practice-J04-claim-2
Original claim: That posting describes a full-time, on-site role in Chandler, Arizona.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: too old for this date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
The job terms match the old page. They describe that past job. Accurate old terms do not make a closed job fit a current jobs board.
Proposed action: qualified.
Suggested wording: The historical posting described full-time, on-site work in Chandler, Arizona.
Check again: Keep these terms only in a clearly labeled historical note. Remove the current-job category, open label, and requests to apply.
practice-J04-claim-3
Original claim: That posting says applications are being accepted through the BG-122 application page.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: too old for this date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J04-source-1, practice-J04-source-2; Source 1: Applications; source 2: Closed date and current status.
Source 1 supports what the September 21 posting said. Source 2 says the job later closed. Supported here means the report of the old posting is accurate. It does not mean applications are open now.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: The employer's October 6 status record says BG-122 closed on September 30, 2026 and is no longer accepting applications.
Check again: Match the closure date and job ID to source 2. Remove every request to apply for this job. If you keep a historical note, record its new use.
One supported final draft
Historical listing: Brindle Gauge Systems listed Process Technician BG-122 on September 21, 2026. The historical posting described full-time, on-site work in Chandler, Arizona. The employer's October 6 status record says BG-122 closed on September 30, 2026 and is no longer accepting applications.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold while the record is shown as a current opening., Choose Withdraw or reject for the current jobs board and keep the reason., Choose Ready for human approval only for a historical note, after checking the closure wording and removal of prompts to apply now..
Other reasonable answers
Withdraw the listing from the current jobs board. Keep a record of the fix or removal. You do not need replacement job text.
Use the suggested final text only as a historical note. Change the stated use and remove it from current job listings first.
Remaining issues
The sources do not show another job ID that is open now. A similar title does not prove there is a replacement opening.
Lesson: A summary can match its source and still be wrong for the time of publication. Use historical wording only where the page and its purpose are clearly historical.
Fictional practice · J05
Conflicting terms
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a current job listing that sends readers to the right employer opening.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: People deciding whether, where, and how to apply for a job.
Employer: Aster Thimble Automation. Requisition: AT-061. Title: Maintenance Controls Engineer.
Worksite: Tempe, Arizona; full-time, on-site.
Base pay: $90,000 to $100,000 per year.
Effective date: October 6, 2026. Opening status: Accepting applications.
Publisher: Aster Thimble Automation Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Career page: Identity, Worksite, and Base pay Source origin: fictional-aster-thimble-automation Fictional reference: https://aster-thimble-automation.example/careers/AT-061
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This is a current page owned by the employer. Nothing in this case says it replaces the other current pay document.
practice-J05-source-2: Recruiting brief | AT-061
Employer recruiting brief. Requisition: AT-061. Title: Maintenance Controls Engineer.
Full-time, on-site in Tempe, Arizona. Accepting applications.
Annual base pay: $96,000 to $108,000.
Effective date: October 6, 2026. This brief provides no precedence rule for conflicting employer publications.
Publisher: Aster Thimble Automation Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Recruiting brief: requisition, worksite, and annual base pay Source origin: fictional-aster-thimble-automation Fictional reference: https://aster-thimble-automation.example/recruiting/AT-061-brief
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This is another current employer document with the same effective date. Nothing says which document replaces the other. Its pay range disagrees with source 1 in a way that matters to readers.
Draft to review
Aster Thimble Automation is hiring a Maintenance Controls Engineer under requisition AT-061. This is a full-time, on-site job in Tempe, Arizona. The employer's current base-pay range is $90,000 to $100,000 per year.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep the pay claim on Hold. Two equally current employer sources disagree, and neither is said to replace the other. The suggested final text removes the disputed pay amounts. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-J05-claim-1
Original claim: Aster Thimble Automation is hiring a Maintenance Controls Engineer under requisition AT-061.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J05-source-1, practice-J05-source-2; Both sources: employer, role, requisition, and status.
Both sources name the same job and say it is open now. The pay conflict does not remove that support.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Aster Thimble Automation is hiring a Maintenance Controls Engineer under requisition AT-061.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-J05-claim-2
Original claim: This is a full-time, on-site job in Tempe, Arizona.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J05-source-1, practice-J05-source-2; Both sources: worksite and employment type.
Both suitable employer sources support these job terms.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: This is a full-time, on-site job in Tempe, Arizona.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-J05-claim-3
Original claim: The employer's current base-pay range is $90,000 to $100,000 per year.
Support: sources disagreeRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J05-source-1, practice-J05-source-2; Source 1: Base pay; source 2: Annual base pay; both effective dates.
Two current, suitable sources disagree on pay. There is no basis here to pick one, average them, or call the higher range a correction.
Proposed action: removed.
Check again: Get a recorded answer from the employer about pay for AT-061, or remove the pay numbers from the text and every pay field. Keep a record of the conflict and check the removal. Do not mark either original range as confirmed.
One supported final draft
Aster Thimble Automation is hiring a Maintenance Controls Engineer under requisition AT-061. This is a full-time, on-site job in Tempe, Arizona.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until the required evidence and checks are complete, every kept Material claim is covered, and each needed fix or removal has been checked again., Choose Ready for human approval after saving the corrected version, its evidence, and the full list of Material claims and their checks. A named human must still make the approval decision., Choose Withdraw or reject if the publisher cannot fix the Material issue for this use..
Other reasonable answers
If the story needs to report the conflict, say which employer document gives each range. Recheck those exact source links and words. Do not present either range as the pay that applies.
Keep the whole listing on Hold until the employer explains the pay if leaving it out would mislead readers.
Remaining issues
These sources do not settle which pay range applies. Keep that gap in the record even if removing the pay claim makes the shorter listing usable.
Lesson: Keep a record when sources disagree. Do not guess. Removing a disputed claim may make a narrower description usable, but it does not settle the source conflict.
Fictional practice · J06
Source identity not confirmed
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a current job listing that sends readers to the right employer opening.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: People deciding whether, where, and how to apply for a job.
Header: Cobalt Thistle Photonics Recruitment.
Now hiring: Optical Assembly Technician, requisition CT-44.
Work location: Mesa, Arizona. Arrangement: Full-time, on-site.
Applicants are instructed to use the recruitment form on this page.
The page gives no publication date. The supplied packet contains no employer link to this page and no verifiable authorization for its recruitment operator.
Publisher: Unverified page claiming to represent Cobalt Thistle Photonics Scenario source date: Unknown Where to find it: Claimed employer header, opening details, and recruitment contact Source origin: fictional-unverified-ct-recruiting-page Fictional reference: https://cobalt-thistle-hiring.example/jobs/CT-44
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. You can read these words in the case. But the claimed employer identity, its approval of this page, and the current job status are not proven. The page design or URL proves neither fraud nor that the page is genuine.
practice-J06-source-2: Company careers navigation
Company careers navigation, October 6, 2026.
Our current careers destination is https://cedarkey-careers.example/cobalt-thistle.
Named recruitment operator: CedarKey Careers.
This navigation page makes no statement about CT-44 or the operator of cobalt-thistle-hiring.example.
Publisher: Cobalt Thistle Photonics Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Current careers navigation and named recruiting operator Source origin: fictional-cobalt-thistle-company Fictional reference: https://cobalt-thistle-photonics.example/careers
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This case identifies the navigation page as genuine company material. It gives a route for checking. It does not prove that the other page is approved or a fraud, or that CT-44 exists.
Draft to review
Cobalt Thistle Photonics is hiring an Optical Assembly Technician under requisition CT-44. This is a full-time, on-site position in Mesa, Arizona. Apply using the form at https://cobalt-thistle-hiring.example/jobs/CT-44
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep the whole listing on Hold. The page contains the draft's words, but its link to the employer and the job's current status are not confirmed. This does not prove the page is a fraud. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-J06-claim-1
Original claim: Cobalt Thistle Photonics is hiring an Optical Assembly Technician under requisition CT-44.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: unresolvedDate or period: unknown
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
The page contains these words, so the text matches. But no employer link or approval connects the page to the company. The company navigation points elsewhere. There is also no date showing that the job is still open.
Proposed action: unresolved.
Check again: Use the company's known careers page, or get a recorded answer through a contact route you confirmed separately. Check who runs the page, the job ID, and its current status before listing it. These supplied sources cannot finish that check.
practice-J06-claim-2
Original claim: This is a full-time, on-site position in Mesa, Arizona.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: unresolvedDate or period: unknown
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J06-source-1; Claimed page: work location and arrangement.
The wording matches the page, but no suitable employer source confirms these terms. Copying the words accurately does not prove who posted them or whether they are current.
Proposed action: unresolved.
Check again: After confirming that the employer approves this page, check the actual CT-44 terms in the employer's known source. Until then, keep this claim unresolved.
practice-J06-claim-3
Original claim: Apply using the form at https://cobalt-thistle-hiring.example/jobs/CT-44
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: unresolvedDate or period: unknown
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J06-source-1, practice-J06-source-2; Source 1: recruitment form instruction; source 2: named recruiting operator and destination.
The page asks people to apply. But the company material does not confirm this form as an approved place to apply. That gap needs a check. It does not by itself prove someone is posing as the employer.
Proposed action: unresolved.
Check again: Confirm the application link through the employer's known route. In a real review, check any redirects too. Do not send applicants to this form while its identity is still in doubt.
One supported final draft
Listing withheld: employer authorization, the claimed opening, and the application destination have not been established.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until separate evidence confirms employer approval, the job ID, and current terms., Choose Withdraw or reject and keep the record of the identity question., The supplied sources alone cannot make this public job ad Ready..
Other reasonable answers
Withdraw or reject the listing without calling it a fraud.
A story about an unconfirmed hiring page would need a different purpose and its own review. It would not approve this job ad.
Remaining issues
Who runs the hiring page, and whether the employer approves it.
Whether CT-44 is a current job in this made-up case, and what its terms are.
Whether the employer approves the form as a place to apply.
Lesson: Check that the source is linked to the right employer. A page that looks official, or a web address that sounds right, does not prove that link. A different domain does not prove fraud either.
Fictional practice · J07
Changed job requirements
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a current job listing that sends readers to the right employer opening.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: People deciding whether, where, and how to apply for a job.
Fictional source packet
practice-J07-source-1: Field Service Technician | RF-208
Identity
Rivet Finch Vacuum Services seeks a Field Service Technician, requisition RF-208, based in Mesa, Arizona. Open as of October 6, 2026.
Required and preferred qualifications
At least two years of vacuum-equipment maintenance experience is required.
An associate degree in an electronics or mechanical field is preferred, not required.
Publisher: Rivet Finch Vacuum Services Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Vacancy: Identity and Required and preferred qualifications Source origin: fictional-rivet-finch-vacuum Fictional reference: https://rivet-finch-vacuum.example/careers/RF-208
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. Required experience and preferred education are separate rules. The source gives no exceptions or rule for using other experience in place of what is stated.
Draft to review
Rivet Finch Vacuum Services seeks a Field Service Technician under requisition RF-208 in Mesa, Arizona. Applicants must hold an associate degree in an electronics or mechanical field. No prior vacuum-equipment maintenance experience is necessary.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep Hold because the draft adds a degree requirement and removes required experience. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-J07-claim-1
Original claim: Rivet Finch Vacuum Services seeks a Field Service Technician under requisition RF-208 in Mesa, Arizona.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J07-source-1; Identity: employer, role, requisition, and city.
The draft names the right job and location.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Rivet Finch Vacuum Services seeks a Field Service Technician under requisition RF-208 in Mesa, Arizona.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-J07-claim-2
Original claim: Applicants must hold an associate degree in an electronics or mechanical field.
Support: sources disagreeRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J07-source-1; Required and preferred qualifications: degree sentence.
The draft turns a preference into a requirement. It could stop people who meet the actual rules from applying.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: An associate degree in an electronics or mechanical field is preferred, not required.
Check again: Keep both preferred and not required in the new wording. Check skill tags and advice to applicants for the same error.
practice-J07-claim-3
Original claim: No prior vacuum-equipment maintenance experience is necessary.
Support: sources disagreeRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J07-source-1; Required and preferred qualifications: experience sentence.
The source requires at least two years of this kind of maintenance work. Saying it is not required changes who qualifies.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: At least two years of vacuum-equipment maintenance experience is required.
Check again: Check the minimum time, kind of experience, and required status. Make sure the final text includes the rule. Then record the new check.
One supported final draft
Rivet Finch Vacuum Services seeks a Field Service Technician under requisition RF-208 in Mesa, Arizona. At least two years of vacuum-equipment maintenance experience is required. An associate degree in an electronics or mechanical field is preferred, not required.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until the required evidence and checks are complete, every kept Material claim is covered, and each needed fix or removal has been checked again., Choose Ready for human approval after saving the corrected version, its evidence, and the full list of Material claims and their checks. A named human must still make the approval decision., Choose Withdraw or reject if the publisher cannot fix the Material issue for this use..
Other reasonable answers
Use separate Required and Preferred lists. Keep the same minimum experience and make clear that the degree is optional.
Remaining issues
The answer key lists no other issue. You still need to finish your own check.
Lesson: Words such as not, required, and preferred change the meaning. Keep them in a short summary.
Fictional practice · J08
Changed pay amount and time unit
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a current job listing that sends readers to the right employer opening.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: People deciding whether, where, and how to apply for a job.
Role
Solstice Finch Metrology is hiring a Calibration Technician, requisition SF-319, in Glendale, Arizona.
Compensation
Base pay: $28 to $34 per hour. This is an hourly base rate, excluding any overtime payments.
Schedule
Full-time role, scheduled for 40 hours per week. Opening confirmed in this fictional page as of October 6, 2026.
Publisher: Solstice Finch Metrology Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Vacancy: Role, Compensation, and Schedule Source origin: fictional-solstice-finch-metrology Fictional reference: https://solstice-finch-metrology.example/careers/SF-319
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. The page does not give annual pay, paid weeks per year, overtime hours, or promised yearly earnings.
Draft to review
Solstice Finch Metrology is hiring a Calibration Technician under requisition SF-319 in Glendale, Arizona. The listed base salary is $28,000 to $34,000 per year. The full-time schedule is 40 hours per week.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep Hold because the draft changes both the pay amount and its time unit. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-J08-claim-1
Original claim: Solstice Finch Metrology is hiring a Calibration Technician under requisition SF-319 in Glendale, Arizona.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J08-source-1; Role: employer, role, requisition, and city.
The job and location match the current source in this case.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Solstice Finch Metrology is hiring a Calibration Technician under requisition SF-319 in Glendale, Arizona.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-J08-claim-2
Original claim: The listed base salary is $28,000 to $34,000 per year.
Support: sources disagreeRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J08-source-1; Compensation: hourly base pay and overtime exclusion.
The draft adds thousands to the numbers and changes per hour to per year. This changes the pay, not just how it looks.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: The listed base pay is $28 to $34 per hour, excluding overtime payments.
Check again: Check both ends of the pay range, the currency, the hourly unit, and the base-pay limit. Check the pay fields and the text readers see.
practice-J08-claim-3
Original claim: The full-time schedule is 40 hours per week.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-J08-source-1; Schedule: full-time and scheduled weekly hours.
The source gives these scheduled hours. They do not tell us how many weeks are paid or what someone earns in a year.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: The full-time schedule is 40 hours per week.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
One supported final draft
Solstice Finch Metrology is hiring a Calibration Technician under requisition SF-319 in Glendale, Arizona. The listed base pay is $28 to $34 per hour, excluding overtime payments. The full-time schedule is 40 hours per week.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until the required evidence and checks are complete, every kept Material claim is covered, and each needed fix or removal has been checked again., Choose Ready for human approval after saving the corrected version, its evidence, and the full list of Material claims and their checks. A named human must still make the approval decision., Choose Withdraw or reject if the publisher cannot fix the Material issue for this use..
Other reasonable answers
You may show a yearly calculation only if it is clearly labeled and states the assumed paid weeks and hours. Do not call it the employer's stated annual salary. Keeping the source's hourly pay is simpler.
Remaining issues
The answer key lists no other issue. You still need to finish your own check.
Lesson: A pay figure needs its currency, time unit, range, and limits. Keeping only the digits does not keep the meaning.
Fictional practice · D01
Unsupported AI business label
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a company profile based on facts for readers looking into Arizona businesses.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: Readers checking what a company does and what kind of presence it has in Arizona.
Fictional source packet
practice-D01-source-1: Services and workshop
Industrial maintenance
Copper Kite Field Services maintains industrial water-monitoring equipment for customers.
Arizona workshop
The company operates a service workshop in Tempe, Arizona. This page describes equipment maintenance services and workshop operations.
Publisher: Copper Kite Field Services Scenario source date: 2026-10-02 Where to find it: Services page: Industrial maintenance and Arizona workshop Source origin: fictional-copper-kite-field-services Fictional reference: https://copper-kite-field-services.example/services
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This passage supports the listed services and workshop. It does not support a software or model product it never mentions.
practice-D01-source-2: How we organize maintenance notes
Our technicians use a third-party hosted language-model product to organize maintenance notes.
Technicians review those notes before including them in customer maintenance records.
This operations note describes our use of purchased software. It contains no statement that we develop a model or license a model platform to customers.
Publisher: Copper Kite Field Services Scenario source date: 2026-10-05 Where to find it: Operations note: third-party language-model product and its use Source origin: fictional-copper-kite-field-services Fictional reference: https://copper-kite-field-services.example/operations/maintenance-notes
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This is the company's own account of how it uses a tool. The lack of a model-building claim here does not prove the company has no other activities.
Draft to review
Copper Kite Field Services develops proprietary foundation models for industrial customers. The company maintains industrial water-monitoring equipment. It operates a service workshop in Tempe, Arizona. Its technicians use a third-party language-model product to organize maintenance notes. Its model platform is available for licensing.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep the model-building and licensing claims on Hold. The sources support industrial maintenance and a stated use of another company's AI tool. Those are different activities. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-D01-claim-1
Original claim: Copper Kite Field Services develops proprietary foundation models for industrial customers.
Support: not backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Neither source shows that the company builds its own AI models. Using an AI product is different from making one. The wrong business label could change a reader's choice.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: The supplied company materials describe a maintenance provider using a third-party AI product; they do not establish a proprietary model-development business.
Check again: Check the narrower description against both pages. Remove model-builder labels and platform claims from the profile and other fields. Do not turn missing evidence into a claim that the company never builds AI.
practice-D01-claim-2
Original claim: The company maintains industrial water-monitoring equipment.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-D01-source-1; Industrial maintenance: described service.
The company describes this service. You can report it as a statement from the supplied company material.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: The company maintains industrial water-monitoring equipment.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-D01-claim-3
Original claim: It operates a service workshop in Tempe, Arizona.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-D01-source-1; Arizona workshop: city and site function.
The source shows a service workshop in Tempe. It does not call it an AI research center or a chip factory.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: It operates a service workshop in Tempe, Arizona.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-D01-claim-4
Original claim: Its technicians use a third-party language-model product to organize maintenance notes.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-D01-source-2; Operations note: first sentence.
The source describes a specific use of another company's AI tool. That does not mean it builds its own models.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Its technicians use a third-party language-model product to organize maintenance notes.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-D01-claim-5
Original claim: Its model platform is available for licensing.
Support: not backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-D01-source-1, practice-D01-source-2; Both complete supplied passages: no model platform or licensing offer.
No source gives a platform, product release, or licensing offer. This claim invents something the company sells.
Proposed action: removed.
Check again: Check that the final text and product or category fields no longer claim model-platform licensing. Keep the original issue in the review history.
One supported final draft
Copper Kite Field Services maintains industrial water-monitoring equipment and operates a service workshop in Tempe, Arizona. Its technicians use a third-party language-model product to organize maintenance notes. The supplied company materials do not establish a proprietary model-development business or model platform for licensing.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until the required evidence and checks are complete, every kept Material claim is covered, and each needed fix or removal has been checked again., Choose Ready for human approval after saving the corrected version, its evidence, and the full list of Material claims and their checks. A named human must still make the approval decision., Choose Withdraw or reject if the publisher cannot fix the Material issue for this use..
Other reasonable answers
If the directory lists only AI builders, leave this company out until suitable evidence shows it qualifies. That is a choice about the directory's scope. It does not prove the company never builds AI.
For a broader directory, keep the supported maintenance description and state exactly how the company uses AI.
Remaining issues
Activities outside these sources are unknown. Do not assume they exist or do not exist.
Lesson: Base a company's category on the work the evidence supports. Using an AI product does not by itself make a company an AI model builder.
Fictional practice · D02
A plan treated as a working site
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a company profile based on facts for readers looking into Arizona businesses.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: Readers checking what a company does and what kind of presence it has in Arizona.
Business
Quartz Tern Packaging supplies semiconductor packaging materials.
Stage
As of October 6, 2026, the proposed Goodyear, Arizona, facility is in the planning stage. Construction has not begun.
Target
The company is targeting a 2028 opening, subject to financing and permits.
Employment estimate
If developed as proposed, the facility could support up to 500 jobs. This is a projected maximum, not a current employment count.
Publisher: Quartz Tern Packaging Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Company project update: Business, Stage, Target, and Employment estimate Source origin: fictional-quartz-tern-packaging Fictional reference: https://quartz-tern-packaging.example/news/goodyear-proposal
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This is the company's report of its plans and estimate. It does not prove that construction is done, the site is running, funding is assured, the opening date is firm, or the jobs exist.
Draft to review
Quartz Tern Packaging supplies semiconductor packaging materials. It operates a semiconductor packaging facility in Goodyear, Arizona. The Goodyear operation has already created 500 jobs and is guaranteed to reach full operation in 2028.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep Hold because the draft turns an unbuilt plan and a possible job count into a working site with existing jobs. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-D02-claim-1
Original claim: Quartz Tern Packaging supplies semiconductor packaging materials.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-D02-claim-2
Original claim: It operates a semiconductor packaging facility in Goodyear, Arizona.
Support: sources disagreeRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-D02-source-1; Stage: planning and construction not begun.
The draft turns a planned site into a working one. Readers could wrongly think local production is already available.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: The company says its proposed Goodyear, Arizona, facility remains in the planning stage as of October 6, 2026; construction has not begun.
Check again: Keep who made the statement, the planning stage, and the review date. Check that location fields do not label the planned site as running.
practice-D02-claim-3
Original claim: The Goodyear operation has already created 500 jobs and is guaranteed to reach full operation in 2028.
Support: sources disagreeRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-D02-source-1; Target and Employment estimate: conditions, target year, and projected maximum.
The source gives a target opening date with conditions and up to 500 possible jobs. It supports neither current jobs nor a promised opening.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: It targets a 2028 opening, subject to financing and permits, and projects that the proposed facility could support up to 500 jobs.
Check again: Check each distinction: target or promise, possible or existing jobs, up to or exactly. Keep every stated condition. Check that the full new description still describes a plan.
One supported final draft
Quartz Tern Packaging supplies semiconductor packaging materials. The company says its proposed Goodyear, Arizona, facility remains in the planning stage as of October 6, 2026; construction has not begun. It targets a 2028 opening, subject to financing and permits, and projects that the proposed facility could support up to 500 jobs.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until the required evidence and checks are complete, every kept Material claim is covered, and each needed fix or removal has been checked again., Choose Ready for human approval after saving the corrected version, its evidence, and the full list of Material claims and their checks. A named human must still make the approval decision., Choose Withdraw or reject if the publisher cannot fix the Material issue for this use..
Other reasonable answers
List the company's supported business activity. Put the Goodyear proposal in a separate field labeled as a plan.
Leave out the target date or job estimate if the directory needs only confirmed sites that are running now.
Remaining issues
The answer key lists no other issue. You still need to finish your own check.
Lesson: A planned site, a site under construction, and a site that is running are different facts. Keep possible future jobs separate from existing jobs.
Fictional practice · D03
Mixing up related companies
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a company profile based on facts for readers looking into Arizona businesses.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: Readers checking what a company does and what kind of presence it has in Arizona.
Fictional source packet
practice-D03-source-1: Group companies and locations
Parent
Larkspur Helix Group has its headquarters in Flagstaff, Arizona.
Cairnwing Sensors
Our subsidiary Cairnwing Sensors makes ceramic sensor housings. Its headquarters and manufacturing operation are in Tucson, Arizona.
Thimble Arc Automation
Our subsidiary Thimble Arc Automation develops industrial scheduling software in San Diego, California.
Publisher: Larkspur Helix Group Scenario source date: 2026-10-03 Where to find it: Group overview: Parent, Cairnwing Sensors, and Thimble Arc Automation entries Source origin: fictional-larkspur-helix-group Fictional reference: https://larkspur-helix-group.example/group-companies
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. The group page gives different places and work for the parent and each company it owns. Shared ownership does not make those facts apply to every company.
practice-D03-source-2: Company profile
Cairnwing Sensors is a subsidiary of Larkspur Helix Group.
We make ceramic sensor housings at our Tucson, Arizona, operation, which also serves as our headquarters.
This profile concerns Cairnwing Sensors, not the activities of other group companies.
Publisher: Cairnwing Sensors Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Profile: legal company, product, and Tucson operation Source origin: fictional-larkspur-helix-group Fictional reference: https://cairnwing-sensors.example/company
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This company's own page confirms its name and work. It is part of the same group, so it is not a separate outside check of the parent's claims.
Draft to review
Cairnwing Sensors develops industrial scheduling software. Its headquarters are in Flagstaff, Arizona. The company makes ceramic sensor housings in Tucson, Arizona.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep Hold because the draft gives one company the work of a related company and the headquarters of their parent company. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-D03-claim-1
Original claim: Cairnwing Sensors develops industrial scheduling software.
Support: not backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
The scheduling software belongs to a related company. The source supports that work for the other company, not the one listed here.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: Cairnwing Sensors makes ceramic sensor housings and is a subsidiary of Larkspur Helix Group.
Check again: Match each activity you keep to the exact company named in the source. Remove the related company's software work from Cairnwing's description and categories.
practice-D03-claim-2
Original claim: Its headquarters are in Flagstaff, Arizona.
Support: sources disagreeRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Flagstaff is the parent's headquarters. Both sources put Cairnwing's headquarters in Tucson. Being owned by the parent does not give it the same location.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: Cairnwing Sensors has its headquarters and manufacturing operation in Tucson, Arizona.
Check again: Check the company name and what it does at that site together. Make sure the final location fields describe Cairnwing, not its parent.
practice-D03-claim-3
Original claim: The company makes ceramic sensor housings in Tucson, Arizona.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Both sources give this work and location to the right company. But both come from the same ownership group. Do not call them separate outside reports.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: The company makes ceramic sensor housings in Tucson, Arizona.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
One supported final draft
Cairnwing Sensors, a subsidiary of Larkspur Helix Group, makes ceramic sensor housings. Its headquarters and manufacturing operation are in Tucson, Arizona.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until the required evidence and checks are complete, every kept Material claim is covered, and each needed fix or removal has been checked again., Choose Ready for human approval after saving the corrected version, its evidence, and the full list of Material claims and their checks. A named human must still make the approval decision., Choose Withdraw or reject if the publisher cannot fix the Material issue for this use..
Other reasonable answers
To describe the whole group, name the parent and state which company does each activity at each site. This changes which company the entry describes, so it needs a new review.
Remaining issues
The answer key lists no other issue. You still need to finish your own check.
Lesson: Related companies are still separate companies. Check who does the work and who uses each site before you combine their descriptions.
Fictional practice · D04
Overstating a local presence
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a company profile based on facts for readers looking into Arizona businesses.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: Readers checking what a company does and what kind of presence it has in Arizona.
Fictional source packet
practice-D04-source-1: Contact and services
Mailing correspondence
Phoenix, Arizona. This correspondence address uses a third-party mail-forwarding service.
Services
Juniper Prism Simulations offers engineering simulation studies for industrial prototypes.
This contact page contains no description of a staffed office or laboratory at the correspondence address.
Publisher: Juniper Prism Simulations Scenario source date: 2026-10-01 Where to find it: Contact page: Mailing correspondence and Services Source origin: fictional-juniper-prism-simulations Fictional reference: https://juniper-prism-simulations.example/contact
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. The address is only for mail. A real city name does not prove there are local staff, a lab, or a working site.
practice-D04-source-2: Arizona service area
Juniper Prism Simulations supports customers across Arizona.
Engineering simulation studies are delivered remotely.
This page describes customer coverage; it does not identify an Arizona company facility.
Publisher: Juniper Prism Simulations Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Service-area description: Arizona customers and remote delivery Source origin: fictional-juniper-prism-simulations Fictional reference: https://juniper-prism-simulations.example/service-area/arizona
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. Serving Arizona customers does not prove the company has a site there. These sources do not settle whether it has another site they do not mention.
Draft to review
Juniper Prism Simulations offers engineering simulation studies for industrial prototypes. The company operates an engineering laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona. It supports customers across Arizona through remotely delivered studies.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep the local-lab claim on Hold. The sources show remote service for Arizona customers and a mailing address. They do not show a working site. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-D04-claim-1
Original claim: Juniper Prism Simulations offers engineering simulation studies for industrial prototypes.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-D04-claim-2
Original claim: The company operates an engineering laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona.
Support: not backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-D04-source-1, practice-D04-source-2; Source 1: Mailing correspondence; source 2: service area and delivery.
A mail-forwarding address and service area do not prove there is an engineering lab. Neither source names local staff or a site. The lab claim lacks support, but that does not prove there is no Arizona site.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: The supplied pages identify a Phoenix correspondence address and Arizona service coverage, but do not establish an Arizona operating facility.
Check again: Replace facility and Phoenix-based labels with the narrower mailing-address or service-area description. Do not claim the company has no Arizona operations just because proof of a site is missing.
practice-D04-claim-3
Original claim: It supports customers across Arizona through remotely delivered studies.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-D04-source-2; Service-area description: customer coverage and remote delivery.
The source says the company serves Arizona customers remotely. That is useful for a directory when this limit stays clear.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: It supports customers across Arizona through remotely delivered studies.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
One supported final draft
Juniper Prism Simulations offers engineering simulation studies for industrial prototypes and supports customers across Arizona through remotely delivered studies. The supplied pages identify a Phoenix correspondence address but do not establish an Arizona operating facility.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until the required evidence and checks are complete, every kept Material claim is covered, and each needed fix or removal has been checked again., Choose Ready for human approval after saving the corrected version, its evidence, and the full list of Material claims and their checks. A named human must still make the approval decision., Choose Withdraw or reject if the publisher cannot fix the Material issue for this use..
Other reasonable answers
If this directory requires a working Arizona site, keep the entry pending until suitable evidence shows one.
For a service-area directory, leave out the mailing city. State that the company serves customers remotely without suggesting a local site.
Remaining issues
The sources do not show whether Juniper Prism has other Arizona premises. A claim about a site needs more evidence.
Lesson: A service area, mailing address, office, and production site mean different things. Name only the kind of presence the evidence supports.
Fictional practice · N01
A company claim copied by other sites
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a short business news item. Make clear what a source reports and what evidence confirms.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: Readers trying to understand a business announcement or event.
Preview
Tamarack Relay Computing announced a preview of its VoltNest compiler on October 5, 2026.
Internal results
The company reports up to 40% lower energy use during its own tests on three internally selected workloads, compared with its previous compiler version.
Evidence limits
The measurement concerns energy used during the reported runs. The announcement supplies no independent laboratory validation and makes no claim about all customer workloads.
The software is described as a preview.
Publisher: Tamarack Relay Computing Scenario source date: 2026-10-05 Where to find it: Original announcement: Preview, Internal results, and Evidence limits Source origin: fictional-tamarack-relay-announcement-20261005 Fictional reference: https://tamarack-relay-computing.example/news/voltnest-preview
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This is the company's report of its own comparison. It supports a careful account of what the company says. It is not separate proof of wider performance.
Release credit: Supplied by Tamarack Relay Computing. This page republishes the company's October 5, 2026 VoltNest announcement.
Tamarack Relay Computing reports up to 40% lower energy use during its own tests on three internally selected workloads, compared with its previous compiler version.
No additional testing or independent reporting is included in this item.
Publisher: Juniper Circuit Bulletin Scenario source date: 2026-10-05 Where to find it: Release credit and reproduced results paragraph Source origin: fictional-tamarack-relay-announcement-20261005 Fictional reference: https://juniper-circuit-bulletin.example/releases/voltnest
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This page credits and copies source 1. It adds no new source of evidence.
practice-N01-source-3: Company release: VoltNest preview
Attribution note: Reproduced from the Tamarack Relay Computing announcement dated October 5, 2026.
The company announced a VoltNest compiler preview and reports up to 40% lower energy use in an internal comparison on three selected workloads against its previous compiler.
This is a reproduced company release. The digest did not conduct performance tests for this item.
Publisher: Mesa Copperwire Digest Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Attribution note and reproduced announcement Source origin: fictional-tamarack-relay-announcement-20261005 Fictional reference: https://mesa-copperwire-digest.example/company-releases/voltnest
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This is another copy of the same company claim. A different domain and date do not make it a separate check.
Draft to review
Tamarack Relay Computing announced a preview of VoltNest on October 5, 2026. Independent tests prove VoltNest reduces energy use by 40%. Three independent reports confirm the result. The company compared the preview compiler with its previous version on three internally selected workloads. The announcement describes the software as a preview.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep Hold on the claims of separate proof and outside confirmation. Several sites repeat one company report. You may report what the company said if the wording and limits are clear. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-N01-claim-1
Original claim: Tamarack Relay Computing announced a preview of VoltNest on October 5, 2026.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-N01-source-1; Original announcement: Preview.
The company's dated statement supports what it announced and when. It does not prove a result beyond that announcement.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Tamarack Relay Computing announced a preview of VoltNest on October 5, 2026.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-N01-claim-2
Original claim: Independent tests prove VoltNest reduces energy use by 40%.
Support: not backed by the sourceRight source: source has limits for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-N01-source-1, practice-N01-source-2, practice-N01-source-3; Source 1: Internal results and Evidence limits; sources 2 and 3: company-release credit.
All the supplied material comes from the company's own test. The draft removes up to, drops the limit to selected workloads, and invents separate proof. These changes overstate what the evidence shows.
Proposed action: qualified.
Suggested wording: Tamarack Relay Computing reports up to 40% lower energy use in its internal comparison on three selected workloads against its previous compiler version.
Check again: Check the new words as a report of what the company says. Keep up to, the internal test, selected workloads, and the comparison baseline. Judge whether the source fits this report, not a claim of separate proof.
practice-N01-claim-3
Original claim: Three independent reports confirm the result.
Support: not backed by the sourceRight source: source has limits for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
The two other pages say they repeat the same announcement. Three pages share one source for this result. They add no separate test.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: The other two supplied pages reproduce the same company announcement and do not provide independent confirmation.
Check again: Trace each copy to source 1 and keep the shared source group. Check that the final article does not call the copies separate studies or independent checks.
practice-N01-claim-4
Original claim: The company compared the preview compiler with its previous version on three internally selected workloads.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-N01-source-1; Internal results: baseline and workload selection.
The source supports a report of the company's test. The word company tells readers who did the testing.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: The company compared the preview compiler with its previous version on three internally selected workloads.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-N01-claim-5
Original claim: The announcement describes the software as a preview.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-N01-source-1; Preview and final sentence.
The draft keeps the product's stage clear. Do not turn this announcement into a full public release or a promise about customer results.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: The announcement describes the software as a preview.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
One supported final draft
Tamarack Relay Computing announced a preview of VoltNest on October 5, 2026. The company reports up to 40% lower energy use in its internal comparison on three selected workloads against its previous compiler version. The supplied materials contain no independent validation; the other two pages reproduce the same company announcement.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until the required evidence and checks are complete, every kept Material claim is covered, and each needed fix or removal has been checked again., Choose Ready for human approval after saving the corrected version, its evidence, and the full list of Material claims and their checks. A named human must still make the approval decision., Choose Withdraw or reject if the publisher cannot fix the Material issue for this use..
Other reasonable answers
Leave out the performance number and report only the preview announcement.
You may keep the result as a company claim with its stated test limits. After review, this narrower wording does not need an automatic Hold just because there is no separate outside check.
Remaining issues
No separate evidence here confirms the performance or shows that it applies to other workloads. Keep those limits clear in the corrected news item.
Lesson: Count where evidence starts, not how many web pages repeat it. A company statement can support a report of what the company says. It does not prove someone else confirmed the result.
Fictional practice · N02
A possible deal treated as complete
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a short business news item. Make clear what a source reports and what evidence confirms.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: Readers trying to understand a business announcement or event.
Desert Lantern Microdevices and Morrowloop Packaging signed a nonbinding memorandum on October 4, 2026 concerning a proposed acquisition of Morrowloop Packaging.
Any acquisition remains subject to financing, due diligence, and both boards' approvals.
The companies say they expect a December closing if those conditions are completed. The memorandum does not transfer ownership.
Publisher: Desert Lantern Microdevices and Morrowloop Packaging Scenario source date: 2026-10-04 Where to find it: Joint announcement: memorandum date and conditions Source origin: fictional-desert-lantern-morrowloop-joint-announcement Fictional reference: https://desert-lantern-microdevices.example/news/proposed-morrowloop-transaction
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. The announcement supports a proposed deal and an expected date with conditions. It does not prove the purchase is done or promise a closing date.
practice-N02-source-2: Transaction status update
As of October 6, 2026, the proposed Morrowloop Packaging acquisition remains under review.
No ownership transfer has been completed. The conditions stated in the October 4 nonbinding memorandum remain in place.
Publisher: Desert Lantern Microdevices and Morrowloop Packaging Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Status update: no completed transfer as of October 6 Source origin: fictional-desert-lantern-morrowloop-joint-announcement Fictional reference: https://desert-lantern-microdevices.example/news/morrowloop-status
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This gives the current status in the case. It does not predict whether the deal will close.
Draft to review
Desert Lantern Microdevices has acquired Morrowloop Packaging. The companies signed a nonbinding memorandum on October 4, 2026. They say they expect a December closing if financing, due diligence, and both boards' approvals are completed.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep Hold because the first sentence turns a proposed deal with conditions into a completed purchase. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-N02-claim-1
Original claim: Desert Lantern Microdevices has acquired Morrowloop Packaging.
Support: sources disagreeRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-N02-source-1, practice-N02-source-2; Source 1: proposed acquisition and no transfer; source 2: status update.
The draft says the purchase is complete. But the early agreement is nonbinding, and the update says ownership has not changed. The announcement date is not a completion date.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: Desert Lantern Microdevices and Morrowloop Packaging announced a proposed acquisition; their October 6 update says no ownership transfer has been completed.
Check again: Use the current update to check the deal's stage. Check the headline, verb tense, and body for any remaining claim that the purchase is complete.
practice-N02-claim-2
Original claim: The companies signed a nonbinding memorandum on October 4, 2026.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-N02-source-1; Joint announcement: first sentence.
This is the date the companies signed a nonbinding early agreement, not the date the purchase closed. The draft keeps that sentence accurate.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: The companies signed a nonbinding memorandum on October 4, 2026.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-N02-claim-3
Original claim: They say they expect a December closing if financing, due diligence, and both boards' approvals are completed.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
The draft names who expects this outcome and keeps the conditions. It does not promise that it will happen in December.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: They say they expect a December closing if financing, due diligence, and both boards' approvals are completed.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
One supported final draft
Desert Lantern Microdevices and Morrowloop Packaging signed a nonbinding memorandum on October 4, 2026 concerning a proposed acquisition. Their October 6 update says no ownership transfer has been completed. They say they expect a December closing if financing, due diligence, and both boards' approvals are completed.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until the required evidence and checks are complete, every kept Material claim is covered, and each needed fix or removal has been checked again., Choose Ready for human approval after saving the corrected version, its evidence, and the full list of Material claims and their checks. A named human must still make the approval decision., Choose Withdraw or reject if the publisher cannot fix the Material issue for this use..
Other reasonable answers
You could report only that the companies signed a nonbinding memorandum. Leave out the expected closing month if the short item does not need it.
Remaining issues
The answer key lists no other issue. You still need to finish your own check.
Lesson: Keep the event, announcement date, deal stage, and future conditions separate. A dated announcement does not make a proposed deal complete.
Fictional practice · N03
Changed numbers or dates covered
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a short business news item. Make clear what a source reports and what evidence confirms.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: Readers trying to understand a business announcement or event.
Fictional source packet
practice-N03-source-1: Member business survey: September 2026
September table
Survey period: September 2026. Respondents: 120 member businesses.
Thirty respondents reported using generative AI tools during September, equivalent to 25% of respondents.
July comparison
In July 2026, 20 of 100 responding member businesses reported use, equivalent to 20%.
Scope notes
Participation was voluntary. The September and July respondent groups were not identical.
These figures describe the responding members for each month; they do not estimate all Arizona businesses or change within a fixed panel.
Publisher: Mesa Copperline Association Scenario source date: 2026-09-30 Where to find it: Survey report: September table, July comparison, and Scope notes Source origin: fictional-mesa-copperline-association Fictional reference: https://mesa-copperline-association.example/research/september-2026-survey
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This is the original report of a voluntary survey of members. It does not show results for the whole population, change in the same businesses, cause and effect, or a full-year rate.
Draft to review
Twenty-five percent of all Arizona businesses used generative AI in 2026. Thirty responding member businesses reported using generative AI tools during September. Compared with July's 20% share, the September 25% share represents a five percent increase.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep Hold because the draft changes who the survey covers and its time period. It also mixes up percent and percentage points. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-N03-claim-1
Original claim: Twenty-five percent of all Arizona businesses used generative AI in 2026.
Support: not backed by the sourceRight source: source has limits for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-N03-source-1; September table and Scope notes.
The draft changes the group from 120 members who chose to respond to all Arizona businesses. It also changes September to the whole year 2026. This survey cannot support that statewide annual claim.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: In the association's September 2026 survey, 25% of 120 responding member businesses reported using generative AI tools that month.
Check again: Check the math for 30 out of 120, who answered, what they reported, and the September period. Check that the source fits the narrower survey claim.
practice-N03-claim-2
Original claim: Thirty responding member businesses reported using generative AI tools during September.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-N03-source-1; September table: count, self-report, and month.
The count and monthly measure correctly cover only the members who responded. The answers are what those members reported.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Thirty responding member businesses reported using generative AI tools during September.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-N03-claim-3
Original claim: Compared with July's 20% share, the September 25% share represents a five percent increase.
Support: sources disagreeRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-N03-source-1; July comparison and Scope notes.
The gap is five percentage points, not a five percent increase. Different groups answered the two surveys. The result does not measure change in the same businesses.
Proposed action: corrected.
Suggested wording: The reported share was five percentage points higher than July's 20%, but the respondent groups differ, so this does not establish change among the same businesses.
Check again: Subtract 20 from 25 to get five percentage points. Keep the warning that different groups answered. Do not call this a statewide trend or growth in the same businesses.
One supported final draft
In the Mesa Copperline Association's September 2026 survey, 30 of 120 responding member businesses, or 25%, reported using generative AI tools that month. The reported share was five percentage points higher than July's 20%. Participation was voluntary and the respondent groups differed, so these figures do not establish statewide prevalence or change among the same businesses.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until the required evidence and checks are complete, every kept Material claim is covered, and each needed fix or removal has been checked again., Choose Ready for human approval after saving the corrected version, its evidence, and the full list of Material claims and their checks. A named human must still make the approval decision., Choose Withdraw or reject if the publisher cannot fix the Material issue for this use..
Other reasonable answers
Leave out the July comparison. Report the September count and share, and say the survey covers members who chose to answer.
You can calculate a 25% relative difference with (25 - 20) / 20. But it is not a growth rate for Arizona or for the same businesses. Percentage points are clearer here.
Remaining issues
This survey does not estimate results for all Arizona businesses. It also does not follow the same group over time.
Lesson: Check the number, total, measure, group, and time period together. Correct math can still lead to a claim the evidence does not support.
Fictional practice · N04
A source that does not fit the claim
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a short business news item. Make clear what a source reports and what evidence confirms.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: Readers trying to understand a business announcement or event.
Product family
Pinyon Harbor Fabrication makes optical alignment fixtures for equipment assembly.
PF-4
The PF-4 fixture supports repeatable alignment of optical modules during assembly.
This product page contains product information only; it includes no funding award, grant date, or grant amount.
Publisher: Pinyon Harbor Fabrication Scenario source date: 2026-10-02 Where to find it: Product page: Product family and PF-4 description Source origin: fictional-pinyon-harbor-fabrication Fictional reference: https://pinyon-harbor-fabrication.example/products/PF-4
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This case identifies the page as the company's real product page. That does not make it evidence for an unrelated grant.
practice-N04-source-2: Company location
Pinyon Harbor Fabrication operates in Mesa, Arizona.
The company profile describes equipment-assembly fixtures.
No grant or funding announcement is included in the supplied profile.
Publisher: Pinyon Harbor Fabrication Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Company profile: Mesa operation Source origin: fictional-pinyon-harbor-fabrication Fictional reference: https://pinyon-harbor-fabrication.example/company
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. The sources support the company's location and work. They give no grant agency, award record, or company funding announcement.
Draft to review
Pinyon Harbor Fabrication makes optical alignment fixtures for equipment assembly. The company received a $7 million state grant on October 1, 2026. Its PF-4 fixture supports repeatable alignment of optical modules during assembly.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
Keep the funding claim on Hold because the linked pages do not report an award. If you remove that claim, decide whether the product description left over still works as news. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-N04-claim-1
Original claim: Pinyon Harbor Fabrication makes optical alignment fixtures for equipment assembly.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
The product page is a suitable source and directly supports this description.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Pinyon Harbor Fabrication makes optical alignment fixtures for equipment assembly.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-N04-claim-2
Original claim: The company received a $7 million state grant on October 1, 2026.
Support: not backed by the sourceRight source: source has limits for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-N04-source-1, practice-N04-source-2; Both complete supplied passages: no grant, amount, date, or award record.
These real company pages do not show any grant. A working page or the right company name cannot supply a missing award, amount, date, or agency. This gap does not prove there was no grant.
Proposed action: removed.
Check again: Remove the grant claim from the headline, body, and summary fields, or get suitable award evidence before writing a new claim. Check the removal. Keep the original unsupported claim in the history.
practice-N04-claim-3
Original claim: Its PF-4 fixture supports repeatable alignment of optical modules during assembly.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
The words match the company's product description. Do not present them as a separate test of performance.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Its PF-4 fixture supports repeatable alignment of optical modules during assembly.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
One supported final draft
Pinyon Harbor Fabrication describes its products as optical alignment fixtures for equipment assembly. Its product page says the PF-4 supports repeatable alignment of optical modules during assembly.
Starting state: hold until resolved.
Possible final decisions: Keep Hold until the required evidence and checks are complete, every kept Material claim is covered, and each needed fix or removal has been checked again., Choose Ready for human approval after saving the corrected version, its evidence, and the full list of Material claims and their checks. A named human must still make the approval decision., Choose Withdraw or reject if the publisher cannot fix the Material issue for this use..
Other reasonable answers
Withdraw the news item if removing the unsupported grant leaves no useful news event.
Use the supported product description in a company entry with its own review.
For a future funding claim, get an actual award record or a suitable announcement that you clearly name as the source. No such evidence is supplied here.
Remaining issues
These sources do not settle whether a grant was awarded. Do not turn missing evidence into a claim that no grant exists.
Lesson: A real source may have nothing to do with the sentence linked to it. Check the evidence for each claim. A working link alone does not make the claim trustworthy.
Fictional practice · C01
Accurate current summary
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a current job listing that sends readers to the right employer opening.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: People deciding whether, where, and how to apply for a job.
Identity and status
Employer: Kestrel Loom Robotics. Role: Equipment Technician. Requisition: KL-091. Open as of October 6, 2026.
Work
Full-time, on-site in Peoria, Arizona.
Compensation
Base pay: $30 to $34 per hour.
This is the complete supplied text for the listed terms.
Publisher: Kestrel Loom Robotics Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Vacancy: Identity and status, Work, and Compensation Source origin: fictional-kestrel-loom-robotics Fictional reference: https://kestrel-loom-robotics.example/careers/KL-091
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. This case identifies the page as the employer's current job posting. Its open status has a date. A later real-world use would need a new check.
Draft to review
Kestrel Loom Robotics lists Equipment Technician requisition KL-091 as open on October 6, 2026. The role is full-time and on-site in Peoria, Arizona. The stated base pay is $30 to $34 per hour.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
No error that could change a reader's choice was added to this case. The draft can be Ready after the normal checks are recorded. The answer key is not a real review or an approval. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-C01-claim-1
Original claim: Kestrel Loom Robotics lists Equipment Technician requisition KL-091 as open on October 6, 2026.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-C01-source-1; Identity and status: employer, role, requisition, and open date.
The employer, job, and dated open status match the case evidence. No error in the identity or current status was added to this case.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Kestrel Loom Robotics lists Equipment Technician requisition KL-091 as open on October 6, 2026.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-C01-claim-2
Original claim: The role is full-time and on-site in Peoria, Arizona.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-C01-source-1; Work: employment type, arrangement, and city.
The draft keeps all the stated job terms. It does not expand where someone may work or promise more remote work.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: The role is full-time and on-site in Peoria, Arizona.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-C01-claim-3
Original claim: The stated base pay is $30 to $34 per hour.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-C01-source-1; Compensation: currency, range, unit, and base-pay status.
The range and hourly base pay match. Do not invent annual pay or add a requirement the sources do not give.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: The stated base pay is $30 to $34 per hour.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
One supported final draft
Kestrel Loom Robotics lists Equipment Technician requisition KL-091 as open on October 6, 2026. The role is full-time and on-site in Peoria, Arizona. The stated base pay is $30 to $34 per hour.
Starting state: can be ready after review.
Possible final decisions: Choose Ready for human approval after recording the required source checks, reviewer name, check time, and full list of Material claims., Only a separate decision by a named human can approve the reviewed version. This practice answer is not that decision., Keep Hold if the real publication date is later and no one has checked again that the job is open..
Other reasonable answers
Keep the draft as it is after recording the evidence checks and full claim list.
You may put the supported terms in a clearer order without changing their meaning. Then check that new version.
Remaining issues
The answer key lists no other issue. You still need to finish your own check.
Lesson: An accurate draft with suitable sources may pass. Do not invent an error or make an unneeded edit just to show that a review took place.
Fictional practice · C02
A clear, limited company description
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a company profile based on facts for readers looking into Arizona businesses.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: Readers checking what a company does and what kind of presence it has in Arizona.
Fictional source packet
practice-C02-source-1: Products and Arizona locations
Products
Cairn Acacia Components supplies insulating mounts used in semiconductor wafer-handling equipment.
Machine shop
Its machining operation is in Mesa, Arizona.
Sales support
Its sales-support office is in Gilbert, Arizona.
The profile describes component supply and those two site functions; it does not claim to fabricate semiconductor chips.
Publisher: Cairn Acacia Components Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Company profile: Products, Machine shop, and Sales support Source origin: fictional-cairn-acacia-components Fictional reference: https://cairn-acacia-components.example/company
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. These are company statements about specific parts and the work done at each site. They do not show chip making, AI model building, or work at sites that are not named.
Draft to review
Cairn Acacia Components supplies insulating mounts used in semiconductor wafer-handling equipment. It operates a machine shop in Mesa, Arizona. Its sales-support office is in Gilbert, Arizona.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
No error that could change a reader's choice was added to this case. The description stays within what the sources show about the company's work and locations. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-C02-claim-1
Original claim: Cairn Acacia Components supplies insulating mounts used in semiconductor wafer-handling equipment.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-C02-source-1; Products: component and equipment application.
The source supports this specific parts-supplier description. It explains the link to semiconductors without calling the company a chip maker.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Cairn Acacia Components supplies insulating mounts used in semiconductor wafer-handling equipment.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-C02-claim-2
Original claim: It operates a machine shop in Mesa, Arizona.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
The source supports both the city and the kind of work done there.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: It operates a machine shop in Mesa, Arizona.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-C02-claim-3
Original claim: Its sales-support office is in Gilbert, Arizona.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
The description keeps the sales office separate from the machining site. That is a useful limit, not a gap to fill with a claim about more work.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Its sales-support office is in Gilbert, Arizona.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
One supported final draft
Cairn Acacia Components supplies insulating mounts used in semiconductor wafer-handling equipment. It operates a machine shop in Mesa, Arizona. Its sales-support office is in Gilbert, Arizona.
Starting state: can be ready after review.
Possible final decisions: Choose Ready for human approval after recording checks of the stated work, the use of each site, and the final list of claims., A named human may approve only the reviewed version through the normal decision step., Keep Hold if new evidence or a different use makes a key location or business claim uncertain..
Other reasonable answers
You may put both locations in one sentence. Keep clear which site does each kind of work.
You may use semiconductor equipment components as a category if the directory uses it consistently and does not suggest the company makes chips.
Remaining issues
The answer key lists no other issue. You still need to finish your own check.
Lesson: A narrow company description can be useful. A precise account of supplied parts is better supported than an inflated label such as chipmaker or AI developer.
Fictional practice · C03
Clearly reporting a company claim
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a short business news item. Make clear what a source reports and what evidence confirms.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: Readers trying to understand a business announcement or event.
Fictional source packet
practice-C03-source-1: Prototype scheduling test announcement
Reported result
Copper Wren Acceleration says its prototype reduced median scheduling time by 18% in an internal test against its own baseline.
Test setting
The test used synthetic task queues. The result described here concerns that internal test, not customer deployments.
Evidence and product limits
The complete supplied release provides no independent validation. Customer trials are planned.
Announcement date: October 5, 2026.
Publisher: Copper Wren Acceleration Scenario source date: 2026-10-05 Where to find it: Announcement: Reported result, Test setting, and Evidence and product limits Source origin: fictional-copper-wren-acceleration Fictional reference: https://copper-wren-acceleration.example/news/prototype-test
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. The source supports what the company says about its prototype and test. It does not give separate proof of the result or show how the product works for real customers.
Draft to review
Copper Wren Acceleration says its prototype reduced median scheduling time by 18% in an internal test against its own baseline. Its October 5, 2026 announcement concerns synthetic task queues, not customer deployments. The supplied release provides no independent validation and describes customer trials as planned.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
No error that could change a reader's choice was added to this case. The company statement fits these limited claims about what it reports. A missing outside check does not automatically require Hold. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-C03-claim-1
Original claim: Copper Wren Acceleration says its prototype reduced median scheduling time by 18% in an internal test against its own baseline.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-C03-source-1; Reported result: full attributed result.
The claim says the company reports this result. The source supports that wording. The draft keeps the prototype stage, median measure, internal test, and company baseline. The company statement fits this use, but it is not separate proof of performance.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Copper Wren Acceleration says its prototype reduced median scheduling time by 18% in an internal test against its own baseline.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-C03-claim-2
Original claim: Its October 5, 2026 announcement concerns synthetic task queues, not customer deployments.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-C03-source-1; Test setting and announcement date.
The sentence stays within what the announced comparison covers. It does not claim to describe all company tests or every use of the product.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Its October 5, 2026 announcement concerns synthetic task queues, not customer deployments.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-C03-claim-3
Original claim: The supplied release provides no independent validation and describes customer trials as planned.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-C03-source-1; Evidence and product limits: both statements.
The statement about missing outside checks applies only to the supplied release. Planned keeps the stage clear. You can accurately report what the company says even if no outside test confirms it.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: The supplied release provides no independent validation and describes customer trials as planned.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
One supported final draft
Copper Wren Acceleration says its prototype reduced median scheduling time by 18% in an internal test against its own baseline. Its October 5, 2026 announcement concerns synthetic task queues, not customer deployments. The supplied release provides no independent validation and describes customer trials as planned.
Starting state: can be ready after review.
Possible final decisions: Choose Ready for human approval after recording checks of who made each claim, the test limits, and the full list of Material claims., A named human may approve only that reviewed version, which clearly names the company as the source., Keep Hold if the words change to a broad performance claim without suitable new evidence and checks..
Other reasonable answers
Keep the number clearly tied to the company, along with its limits, after the normal review.
You may leave out the promotional number to make a shorter product announcement. That is an editing choice, not a required fix.
Remaining issues
No separate test or real customer result is shown. The draft does not claim either and makes that limit clear.
Lesson: Judge the claim the draft actually makes. Saying a company reports a result is different from saying outside evidence proves it. Clear wording about who made the claim can be Ready without pretending that a separate test took place.
Fictional practice · C04
Missing pay stated correctly
Made-up practice case. The names, source passages, drafts, and errors are invented. The .example links are teaching examples, not real source pages. All source dates and times, including retrieved_at and review dates, belong to the made-up case. They are not real checks. This is not a report of a real AI or publisher error. The worksheet does not find errors for you.
Intended use: Write a current job listing that sends readers to the right employer opening.
Date or period: For publication on October 6, 2026, Arizona time. Use only the made-up evidence supplied with this case.
Audience: People deciding whether, where, and how to apply for a job.
Identity and status
Employer: Willowpin Assembly. Role: Assembly Documentation Technician. Requisition: WA-056. Accepting applications as of October 6, 2026.
Worksite
Full-time, on-site in Surprise, Arizona.
Duties
Prepare assembly instructions and maintain production documentation.
End of supplied vacancy page.
Publisher: Willowpin Assembly Scenario source date: 2026-10-06 Where to find it: Complete supplied vacancy page: Identity and status, Worksite, and Duties Source origin: fictional-willowpin-assembly Fictional reference: https://willowpin-assembly.example/careers/WA-056
Made-up source passage. No real page was opened. The full supplied posting has no salary or hourly-pay field. This finding covers only this posting. It does not show what the employer says elsewhere or what it may offer someone.
Draft to review
Willowpin Assembly lists Assembly Documentation Technician requisition WA-056 as accepting applications on October 6, 2026. The role is full-time and on-site in Surprise, Arizona. The supplied employer posting does not state salary or hourly pay.
First, list claims that could change a reader’s choice. Then ask three things: Does the source back the claim? Is it the right source? Does it fit the date or period?
No error that could change a reader's choice was added to this case. The draft correctly says pay is missing from this source. It does not invent an amount or make a claim about every employer document. These notes review the original draft. Suggested changes still need checks. They do not approve the item for publication.
These answers describe the original draft. You still need to check any suggested change. Read the final words and the evidence before making your own decision.
practice-C04-claim-1
Original claim: Willowpin Assembly lists Assembly Documentation Technician requisition WA-056 as accepting applications on October 6, 2026.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-C04-source-1; Identity and status: employer, title, requisition, and dated status.
The job identity and dated open status match the posting.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: Willowpin Assembly lists Assembly Documentation Technician requisition WA-056 as accepting applications on October 6, 2026.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-C04-claim-2
Original claim: The role is full-time and on-site in Surprise, Arizona.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-C04-source-1; Worksite: employment type, arrangement, and city.
The draft keeps the stated location and work schedule accurate.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: The role is full-time and on-site in Surprise, Arizona.
Check again: Compare the words you keep with the source passage. Record who checked them and when. Check the final draft too. Mark this as a made-up practice check, not a check of a real source.
practice-C04-claim-3
Original claim: The supplied employer posting does not state salary or hourly pay.
Support: backed by the sourceRight source: right source for this claimDate or period: fits the date or period
How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Evidence: practice-C04-source-1; Complete supplied vacancy page: no compensation field.
The full posting supports this limited statement about missing pay. It does not mean pay is missing everywhere, the job is unpaid, or the employer never states pay.
Proposed action: keep the words; source backs them.
Suggested wording: The supplied employer posting does not state salary or hourly pay.
Check again: Read the full posting. Keep the scope words supplied employer posting. Leave pay values null or blank. Do not add an estimate just to fill a form.
One supported final draft
Willowpin Assembly lists Assembly Documentation Technician requisition WA-056 as accepting applications on October 6, 2026. The role is full-time and on-site in Surprise, Arizona. The supplied employer posting does not state salary or hourly pay.
Starting state: can be ready after review.
Possible final decisions: Choose Ready for human approval after recording checks of the job identity, dated status, terms, and statement that this posting has no pay figure., A named human may approve that reviewed version only through the separate decision step., Keep Hold if someone later adds a pay estimate without suitable evidence and a new check..
Other reasonable answers
Leave out the pay sentence. Leave the amount blank and label it Unknown or Not stated in supplied posting.
Use a separate, clearly labeled pay claim only if you later get suitable evidence for the same role.
Remaining issues
The answer key lists no other issue. You still need to finish your own check.
Lesson: Unknown can be an accurate and useful answer. Something missing from one source is not proof that it is missing everywhere. A missing value is not zero.
