Verified against Perplexity Pro · 2026-07-14
Fact-check one specific claim with a verdict you can't hedge around
A closed-verdict fact-checking prompt that requires quoting the exact claim, weighing real counter-evidence, and committing to one of six named verdicts rather than a vague "it depends."
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
Fact-check this exact claim. Quote it back to me first to confirm you are checking the actual wording, not a softened paraphrase of it. CLAIM (verbatim) "Remote workers are 23% more productive than in-office workers, according to a Stanford study." WHERE I SAW IT A LinkedIn post from a remote-work software vendor CONTEXT THAT MIGHT MATTER The post doesn't specify which Stanford study or what year. PROCESS 1. Confirm the precise, checkable assertion in the claim — if it bundles more than one assertion, separate them and check each on its own. 2. Find the best available evidence for it and the best available evidence against it. If you genuinely cannot find real counter-evidence, say that explicitly rather than inventing a weak devil's-advocate case just to appear balanced. 3. Give one verdict per assertion: True, False, Mostly True, Mostly False, Mixed, or Unverifiable. No other verdict labels. 4. Justify the verdict in two or three sentences citing the actual sources, not the general reputation of whoever made the claim. Do not soften a False verdict into "this is disputed" if the weight of verifiable evidence actually points one way.
Customize the highlighted detailsoptional — the prompt above already works
Why this works
Quoting the exact claim back before checking it matters because the search step queries on the literal wording — a paraphrase can drift toward a softer version of the claim that was never actually asserted, and the model ends up 'verifying' a statement nobody made. Forcing a closed set of six verdict labels prevents the most common failure mode of open-ended fact-checking, where a model defaults to a non-committal 'this is complicated' that sounds careful but commits to nothing a reader can act on. Requiring genuine counter-evidence, and permitting the model to say none exists rather than manufacturing a weak opposing case, guards against a subtler failure — synthetic balance, where a model invents a flimsy 'on the other hand' argument purely to look even-handed, which actually makes a true claim look more contested than the evidence supports.
What you get back
Claim confirmed: "Remote workers are 23% more productive than in-office workers, according to a Stanford study." Assertion: a specific Stanford study found a 23% productivity gap favoring remote work. Verdict: Mostly False. A widely cited 2015 Stanford study (Bloom et al.) found a roughly 13% productivity gain for a specific call-center task under a structured work-from-home arrangement, not a general 23% figure, and it does not generalize to knowledge work broadly. No Stanford study reporting 23% could be located; this figure appears to be a commonly repeated distortion of the original number.
Verified against
Perplexity Pro Sonar Pro · 2026-07-14
Changelog
- 2026-07-14 — Initial publish, verified against Perplexity Pro Sonar Pro.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — what Scult builds, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE WHAT SCULT BUILDS
