Writing review guides · Supplied-source review
Does This Source Support That Claim? A Claim–Evidence Table
To check whether a source supports a claim, write down the exact claim, locate the relevant passage and compare their scope, certainty and limitations. A citation tells the reader where to look. The passage still needs to support what the sentence says.
Published 15 October 2026 · Publisher: Ethara Global Technologies Inc., developer of VEYTHARA by ETHARA™.
Method: all study details and reviewer notes below are fictional examples written for this guide. The five labels are an editorial worksheet, not a claim that the live product automatically assigns these verdicts.
A citation is not the same as support
Supplied source — fictional workshop report, paragraph 4: “In an April workshop, 18 volunteers tried a planning worksheet. Eleven said it helped them organize tasks. The workshop did not measure productivity or compare the worksheet with other methods. Results may not generalize beyond the volunteers.”
Draft sentence: “The April study proves that planning worksheets increase productivity for all workers and outperform other methods.”
Adding a reference to paragraph 4 would not fix this sentence. The passage describes volunteer feedback about organization. It does not report a productivity measure, a comparison or a finding about every worker. The subject is similar, but the claims are different.
Split the sentence into checkable claims
Break the draft into assertions that can be assessed separately: the workshop established proof; worksheets increased productivity; the result applies to all workers; worksheets outperformed alternatives. Each needs its own supporting language. A passage supporting one part does not automatically support the rest.
Also distinguish an observation from an interpretation or recommendation. “Eleven volunteers reported help with organization” describes the supplied observation. “The worksheet may be worth a larger trial” is a recommendation. Label that recommendation as yours rather than attributing it to the report.
Match each claim to an exact passage
Here, W1, paragraph 4 identifies the supplied fictional report. In actual work, retain the title, author or organization, date, page or section and available URL. Do not invent missing details.
Copy supporting and limiting language into your notes. Inspect the surrounding text. Record when a passage is only an excerpt: an unanswered question may require the full document.
Use five review labels carefully
| Worksheet label | Use it when | Illustration |
|---|---|---|
| Supported by passage | The passage supports the stated wording and qualifications. | “Eleven volunteers said the worksheet helped organize tasks.” |
| Partially supported | Some of the sentence is supported; another material part is not. | “Eleven volunteers reported better organization and higher productivity.” |
| Not addressed | The supplied passage does not answer this assertion. | “The worksheet is cheaper than coaching.” |
| Contradicted | The passage directly conflicts with the assertion. | “The workshop compared the worksheet with other methods.” |
| Insufficient context | The excerpt or reference is too incomplete to assess. | “This improved their scores,” with no available definition of “scores” or comparison. |
Use the narrowest accurate description. “Not addressed” does not mean false. “Supported by passage” does not establish that the passage itself is authentic, reliable or the complete evidence on the topic. The label concerns this supplied material and this wording.
Watch for certainty, causation and missing context
Certainty: “volunteers said” becomes “proves.” Restore the reporting language. Causation: perceived help with organization becomes a measured productivity increase. Separate the reported experience from an unmeasured outcome. Scope: 18 volunteers become all workers. Retain the sample and the report’s generalization limit.
Review the whole statement after correcting each part. The draft comparison checklist also covers negation, quantities, dates and attribution.
A complete example and reviewer decision
| Claim under review | Passage/location and label | Decision and reason |
|---|---|---|
| “Eighteen volunteers tried the worksheet.” | W1 ¶4: “18 volunteers tried” · Supported by passage. | Retain with the April workshop context. |
| “The worksheet improved organization for everyone.” | W1 ¶4: eleven self-reports among 18 · Partially supported. | Narrow: “Eleven of 18 volunteers said it helped organize tasks.” |
| “The workshop compared methods and found the worksheet better.” | W1 ¶4: no comparison was made · Contradicted. | Remove; the workshop cannot establish comparative performance. |
Reviewed version: “In an April workshop, eleven of 18 volunteers said the planning worksheet helped them organize tasks. The report did not measure productivity or compare other methods, and cautioned against generalizing beyond the volunteers.”
Copy this blank worksheet for your work: claim · source ID/title · passage/location · supporting or limiting words · review label · retain, narrow or remove · reason · reviewer/date · unresolved context. Keep a separate row for each material assertion.
What supplied-source review cannot establish
VEYTHARA displays text differences, literal correspondence with supplied passages and rule-based review prompts. The reviewer decides whether the language supports the claim. Phrase overlap alone does not establish support; different wording can sometimes express the same point.
This workflow does not fetch an exhaustive evidence base, authenticate a document, resolve omitted counterevidence or certify truth outside the supplied material. A saved review record describes inputs and decisions. It is not legal certification, independent fact-checking or proof of authorship.
Prepare the original draft, revision and passages you are permitted to use. Review data and privacy before sending material. Return to the writing review guides for related worksheets.
A text-and-evidence review pilot by Ethara Global Technologies Inc.
Final judgments about evidence, meaning and attribution remain with the reviewer.
