Three made-up reviews show each step. Three dated examples from real sources follow. Each shows the words, evidence, and limits.
These are two different kinds of example. The first three are made up to teach the steps. The next three show limited checks of real pages on stated dates. They do not show how well the toolkit works in real use.
Fictional worked example · 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 worked example · 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 worked example · 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.
Observed public-source illustrations
The records show what was checked and when. They do not show an AI error or a completed human review. A live source page may change.
Observed public-source illustration
EV Group Data Analyst: the opening is in Austria
Use: Show how to check the exact employer job page. Do not give an overseas job an Arizona location just because the company also has an Arizona site.
Date or period: These are the job terms shown on the employer page when it was opened and checked for this release. No separate check confirms that the job is still open.
Text based on the named sources
EV Group's retrieved employer page describes an entry-level, full-time Data Analyst role at its headquarters in St. Florian am Inn, Austria. It calls for a university degree in Data Science or another data-analysis area and describes industry experience in Overlay Analysis as beneficial.
The employer page gives the role, Austrian location, full-time and entry-level labels, required degree, and experience described as helpful.
Publisher
EV Group
Locator
Main heading and metadata row; Requirements, first two bullets
Source date
Unknown; no date inferred
Recorded check
October 6, 2026, 11:58 PM Arizona time
Limits
The page was found through the employer careers page. The root agent opened it again for a separate check. No publication date is shown. This records the terms that were read. It does not promise that applications remain open or that every job term was checked.
Evidence for each claim
OBS-J-C01
The employer page identifies the role as Data Analyst.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
OBS-J-C02
The listed workplace is St. Florian am Inn, Austria, at the headquarters.
The company's separate Tempe site does not make this an Arizona job.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
OBS-J-C03
The page labels the role full time.
The draft keeps the full-time label. It does not assume remote or hybrid work.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
OBS-J-C04
The page labels the role entry level.
The entry-level label does not remove the separate degree requirement.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
OBS-J-C05
The requirements call for a university degree in Data Science or another data-analysis area.
The draft keeps the choice of degree fields. It does not narrow the rule to one major.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
OBS-J-C06
Industry experience in Overlay Analysis is described as beneficial.
The draft keeps helpful experience separate from required experience.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Scope: This example uses a real employer page. It does not report an observed AI error. The job is in Austria. A company with Arizona sites can have jobs elsewhere. Pay and the general benefits panel were not part of these selected claims. No publication date is shown, and no separate check confirms that the job remains open.
Original review record
This dated record keeps its original wording. It is history, not a new check.
NIST evidence agent followed the current employer careers-page link and checked the job heading, metadata and requirements.
Root agent separately opened the replacement job page and confirmed the location, labels, degree wording and beneficial-experience qualifier. The exact event timestamp was not supplied.
Artifact review: verified against finished html.
Separate agent source checks, not human evaluation or confirmation from the employer. No application was submitted and no live vacancy status is guaranteed. Recheck before public release.
Lesson: Check the location of this exact job. Keep preferred experience separate from required experience. Entry level does not remove the listed requirements.
Observed public-source illustration
EV Group: what the company says and where it is
Use: Show a company profile that names the company as its source. Check its work and Arizona presence as separate claims.
Date or period: These are company statements on the official pages checked for this release. They are not a promise that the details will stay correct.
Text based on the named sources
EV Group, abbreviated EVG, describes its work as semiconductor process solutions and equipment. Its profile lists wafer bonding, lithography, thin-wafer processing and metrology products and states that the company was founded in 1980. Its locations page lists headquarters in St. Florian am Inn, Austria, and an Arizona North America location in Tempe.
The company describes who it is, its semiconductor focus, its kinds of equipment, and its founding year.
Publisher
EV Group
Locator
Short Profile, paragraphs 1-4
Source date
Unknown; no date inferred
Recorded check
October 6, 2026, 11:57 PM Arizona time
Limits
This is the company's own description, not a separate test of performance. No publication date is shown. This example makes no claim about employee count or market leadership.
The location list shows the headquarters in Austria and a separate presence in Tempe.
Publisher
EV Group
Locator
EV Group Headquarters and EV Group North America - Arizona entries
Source date
Unknown; no date inferred
Recorded check
October 6, 2026, 11:57 PM Arizona time
Limits
These are the company's own location listings. They do not show the work, staff count, or manufacturing output at each office. No publication date is shown.
Evidence for each claim
OBS-D-C01
The company profile identifies EV Group with the abbreviation EVG.
The company name was checked directly. It was not guessed from an unrelated business name.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
OBS-D-C02
EVG describes semiconductor process solutions and equipment as its business.
The wording names the company as the source. It does not claim that separate tests proved its performance.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
OBS-D-C03
Its listed equipment categories include wafer bonding, lithography, thin-wafer processing and metrology.
The listed kinds of products support this specific description. They do not prove that the Arizona site makes chips.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
OBS-D-C04
The company states that it was founded in 1980.
This history comes from the company. It does not claim that its Arizona office existed at that time.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Minor: little effect on a reader’s choice.
OBS-D-C05
Its locations page places the headquarters in St. Florian am Inn, Austria.
The headquarters is kept separate from the local office.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
OBS-D-C06
Its Arizona North America location is listed in Tempe, Arizona.
The company's official list supports saying it has an Arizona presence. It does not support claims about local output or staff.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Scope: These statements come from the company website. The pages do not show publication dates. They are not separate proof of performance, market rank, local manufacturing, or that all company jobs are in Arizona. This is an example using real sources, not an observed AI error or a test score.
Original review record
This dated record keeps its original wording. It is history, not a new check.
NIST evidence agent opened the official sources and checked claim wording and locators.
Root agent independently opened these official sources and reported confirmation in the task message. The exact event timestamp was not supplied.
Artifact review: verified against finished html.
Agent-assisted desk review, not human evaluation, independent expert certification, or evidence of publishing outcomes. Recheck the sources before public release.
Lesson: Check what a company supplies and where each site is. Keep the company's worldwide work, headquarters, and Arizona presence separate.
Observed public-source illustration
TSMC Arizona: a November 2024 award announcement
Use: Show how to report a past funding announcement. Keep the maximum amounts, plans, and rules for payment clear.
Date or period: This covers what the archived NIST release announced on November 15, 2024. It does not report current project or payment status.
Text based on the named sources
An archived NIST release dated November 15, 2024 says the U.S. Department of Commerce awarded TSMC Arizona Corporation up to $6.6 billion in direct funding. It linked the award to a planned investment of more than $65 billion across three Phoenix fabrication facilities and said disbursement would depend on project milestones.
The archived announcement keeps the award amount, private investment plan, location, and payments tied to project milestones separate.
Publisher
NIST / U.S. Department of Commerce
Locator
Release date and first two body paragraphs
Source date
2024-11-15
Recorded check
October 6, 2026, 11:57 PM Arizona time
Limits
This page is marked as an archived announcement. Its update date is October 6, 2025. It does not show current investment totals, completed chip plants, jobs created, or money already paid.
Evidence for each claim
OBS-N-C01
The archived release is dated November 15, 2024.
This uses the announcement date, not the later page-update date.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
OBS-N-C02
The release says Commerce awarded funding to TSMC Arizona Corporation.
The claim is about the named recipient and what the agency announced.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
OBS-N-C03
The announced direct funding was up to $6.6 billion.
The draft keeps the maximum amount and type of funding. An award does not mean the full amount was paid.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
OBS-N-C04
The release described a planned private investment of more than $65 billion.
The planned private investment stays separate from money spent and from the public award.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
OBS-N-C05
The investment plan in that release concerned three fabs in Phoenix.
The number comes from the historical plan. It is not presented as today's count of sites.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
OBS-N-C06
The release tied disbursement to completion of project milestones.
This condition avoids a false impression that all the awarded money had already been paid.
Support: backed by the source. Right source: right source for this claim. Date or period: fits the date or period. How much it matters: Material: could change a reader’s choice.
Scope: An agent checked this example of an archived announcement. It is not a current investment report or a financial audit. The review did not check later changes to plans, program terms, construction, or payments. It does not claim that the source publisher or an AI system made an error.
Original review record
This dated record keeps its original wording. It is history, not a new check.
NIST evidence agent opened the official sources and checked claim wording and locators.
Root agent independently opened these official sources and reported confirmation in the task message. The exact event timestamp was not supplied.
Artifact review: verified against finished html.
Agent-assisted desk review, not human evaluation, independent expert certification, or evidence of publishing outcomes. Recheck the sources before public release.
Lesson: An announced award, a private investment plan, and money already paid are different claims. Keep the original date, limits, and rules for payment.
