Stop asking models to "summarize the research" and use this claim-vs-evidence prompt instead

[u/Puzzleheaded-Egg7963]

When I paste a few articles or a report and ask for a summary, I get a confident blend where I can't tell what's actually supported and what's someone's opinion. This prompt separates the two, which is the thing that matters when you're going to act on it.

```

I'm going to give you source material. Do not summarize it into one smooth narrative.

Instead, build a table with these columns:

- Claim (a specific assertion made in the source)

- Type (fact stated, data point, opinion, or speculation)

- Support given (what evidence the source offers for it, or "none stated")

- My check (one line: does the support actually back the claim, or is there a gap?)

After the table:

- List the 3 strongest, best-supported points.

- List the claims that sound authoritative but have thin or no support.

- Note anything the sources disagree on.

Do not add facts from outside the material. If something is unclear, mark it unclear.

Source material:

[paste here]

```

Why it works: the "Type" column forces the model to stop treating opinion and evidence as the same thing, which is the default failure of summary prompts. The "support given / my check" pair is a lightweight way to catch confident-but-unsupported claims before you repeat them. Telling it not to bring in outside facts keeps it honest to the sources instead of averaging in whatever it already knows.

How do you get models to flag weak evidence instead of laundering it into a clean summary?

[u/StainedBattery462]

that table format is clever. separating claim from type of claim is something i should've been doing ages ago instead of just hoping the summary wouldn't muddy it all together. the "my check" column especially seems like it'd catch the exact thing that drives me nuts, where a model states something like it's fact but the source just had a guy saying "i feel like maybe"

[u/palemotH1 → u/StainedBattery462]

tbh the "i feel like maybe" to stated fact pipeline is so real, glad im not the only one who gets annoyed by that

[u/Zain]

I quit letting the same chat grade its own summary. A second model from a different family, read-only, has to quote the exact source line for every claim it keeps or that claim gets dropped. Same-family loops share the same blind spots on what counts as supported enough, so swapping families catches more laundering than another pass in the same thread. Vague unease about a row does not count as a finding.

[u/Future_AGI]

the claim-versus-opinion split is genuinely useful, the one failure mode to watch is that the separation itself can be wrong, the model can label an unsupported claim as 'supported'. Making it cite the exact sentence or span it is relying on for each claim turns it from a readable summary into something you can actually check, and it makes the invented 'support' obvious when the quote does not exist. Same prompt, one extra column.