References under control

How can you establish that a source exists and genuinely supports the claim attributed to it?

1250 € per session, excl. VAT

In short

In a half-day session of 3 hours discover how to check a quotation suggested by AI or included in a briefing note. You will learn to locate the document, compare its bibliographic information and examine the quoted passage, then record the evidence and limitations in a verification sheet.

Why this training?

A well-presented reference may contain an incorrect author, an approximate title or a fabricated identifier. Even when a document exists, it does not necessarily substantiate the accompanying claim: locating the source and checking how it is used are two separate checks. AI can help break down a reference and suggest searches, but its response does not constitute evidence. The training teaches you to return to the accessible document, identify the relevant passage and make explicit what remains uncertain. Running case study: The fictitious organisation Avelune Documentation is preparing a briefing note on digital reading. Its draft includes three references: an accurate quotation, an incorrect attribution and a reference that cannot be found in the supplied materials. Participants must decide which to retain, correct or flag as unverified. Application at work: After the session, take a non-sensitive reference from a working note, apply the checking sheet and have a colleague review the conclusion. Keep a record of unsuccessful searches rather than treating the absence of results as proof of non-existence.

Objectives of this training

  • Identify the bibliographic details needed to locate a source.
  • Formulate searches using a title, author or identifier.
  • Compare the stated reference with the information in the document located.
  • Check a claim against the original passage and its context.
  • Write a verification conclusion supported by accessible records.

Who is it for and what are the prerequisites?

Roles and tasks concerned

  • Assistants and documentation officers who review notes containing sources.
  • Occasional writers of synthesis reports who wish to check references suggested by AI.

Prior skills

  • No prior AI knowledge required.
  • Ability to open a document, use a browser and copy a link.

What you will work on

  1. Breaking down a citation

    Objective: Identify what needs to be checked. Author, title, year, publication medium, pagination, URL and identifier; the difference between a credible appearance and documentary evidence.

  2. Locating the document

    Objective: Develop a traceable search. Searching by exact title, variants and author; consulting a catalogue or the publisher’s website; limitations of results and broken links.

  3. Reading beyond the extract

    Objective: Determine whether the source supports the chosen wording. Exact quotation, paraphrase, context, caveats and document version; why a summary is insufficient to validate an inaccessible passage.

  4. Drawing conclusions without overstating

    Objective: Produce an understandable decision on the documentary evidence. Verification statuses, correcting an attribution and expressing uncertainty; retaining records.

What you take away

  • Table breaking down the three references.
  • Log of searches and documents consulted.
  • Verification sheets with supporting extracts.
  • Corrected note with explicit caveats about the documentary evidence.

Method and assessment

  • Short instructional segments followed by immediate practice on the running case study.
  • Individual work followed by work in pairs, with peer review of the outputs.
  • Guided group discussion: what works, what needs correcting and what remains a human decision.
  • Preparation: Arrange access to the tools authorised by the organisation; no confidential documents will be shared with AI. Prepare a fictitious or anonymised training pack containing a draft, references, sample documents and a separate answer key.

Observable criteria: Available authors, titles, publication media and identifiers are compared without inventing information to fill missing fields. ; Each conclusion cites a document consulted and a precise location, or indicates a lack of access. ; The check distinguishes between the document’s existence and its support for the claim. ; Each reference receives a justified status: verified, requiring correction or unverified. ; The review counts substantiated conclusions and remaining errors by comparison with the answer key..

Frequently asked questions

Is an affirmative response from AI sufficient?

No. You must consult a source and check the information it contains.

What should you do if the full text is inaccessible?

Distinguish confirmed metadata from unverified content and indicate the access limitation.

Is a reference that cannot be found necessarily fabricated?

No. Record the searches carried out and retain the unverified status.

Do you need an assistant connected to the web?

No. The supplied materials enable you to complete the exercises; external searching depends on authorised access.

Last updated: