Validate the decision supported by the prose. Break the output into material claims, connect each claim to evidence, rerun calculations and route high-impact judgement to the person authorised to approve it.
The validation record has five fields
| Field | Question | Evidence kept |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement | What decision or action must the output support? | Approved brief and acceptance criteria |
| Claim | Which sentence could change that decision? | Claim ID and exact wording |
| Source | Where does the claim come from? | Document, table, page, cell or system record |
| Check | How was accuracy or completeness tested? | Trace, formula, rule or comparison |
| Owner | Who can accept the residual risk? | Named reviewer and approval state |
Validation flow
Freeze the output contract
Write the audience, decision, required sections, approved sources, date range and forbidden assumptions before generation.
Extract material claims
List numbers, dates, commitments, recommendations and statements that affect the reader's decision.
Run deterministic checks
Recalculate totals, check units, compare dates, test required coverage and reject unsupported citations.
Apply risk-based review
Route legal, financial, safety and externally binding statements to the authorised reviewer.
Save the evidence ledger
Store the approved output with its source versions, checks, reviewer and decision date.
Worked example: validate a board memo
This fictional example uses a quarterly memo with three claims. The source pack contains a revenue table, a regional margin table and a cash forecast.
Draft paragraph
“Q2 revenue reached $11.8 million, up 18% year on year. EMEA gross margin fell 3.2 percentage points to 28.3%. Current cash supports 14 months of operations at the forecast monthly burn.”
| Claim | Source value | Check | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1: Revenue is $11.8m, up 18% | Q2 prior: $10.0m. Q2 current: $11.8m. | (11.8 - 10.0) / 10.0 = 18% | Pass |
| C2: EMEA margin fell 3.2 points to 28.3% | Prior: 31.5%. Current: 28.3%. | 31.5 - 28.3 = 3.2 percentage points | Pass |
| C3: Cash supports 14 months | Cash: $7.0m. Monthly burn: $0.5m. | 7.0 / 0.5 = 14 months | Pass, finance owner reviews burn assumption |
Completeness test
The memo brief also required the cause of the EMEA decline and the mitigation owner. The draft omitted both. The numbers pass, but the memo fails completeness until those fields are added from approved sources.
Risk determines the review gate
| Risk tier | Example | Required gate |
|---|---|---|
| Low | Internal meeting summary with no commitments | Source trace and owner spot-check |
| Medium | Customer proposal with price, scope or delivery dates | Claim ledger plus commercial owner approval |
| High | Legal, financial, safety or regulatory output | Deterministic checks plus authorised specialist approval |
Common failure modes
- A citation exists, but the cited passage does not support the claim.
- The arithmetic is correct, but the source uses a different period or unit.
- Every sentence is accurate, but a required section is missing.
- The output repeats source bias or outdated policy.
- The reviewer checks wording and misses the business decision embedded in the text.
Public sources
- Anthropic: define success criteria and evaluations
- Anthropic: develop test cases
- NIST AI Risk Management Framework
Related Timo Labs guides
Prepare for Associate Foundations
CCAO-F covers professional Claude use for business and knowledge-work roles. Review the official exam facts and access route.
View CCAO-F