When a real source is cited for a claim it never makes, another broad rewrite or another batch of output may leave the underlying problem intact. Diagnose the relevant failure before changing the whole process.
Find the likely cause
Topical relevance is mistaken for evidentiary support.
Treat this as an explanation to verify against the actual work. Look at the input, the relevant decision, and the final result together. If the evidence does not support this diagnosis, investigate the mismatch before applying a convenient but unrelated fix.
Make the targeted correction
Match each important assertion to the actual supporting passage.
Fact checking requires tracing important claims to evidence rather than asking the same model to reassure itself.
Check that the repair worked
Explain the connection without stretching the source's meaning.
Repeat the check on the final version that the reader or customer will encounter. An approved draft, a preview, and a published result can differ; the acceptance decision should concern the version people actually use.
Prevent the next related failure
A separate issue to watch for is this: old facts survive a rewrite with a new date. Identify time-sensitive claims and verify them before publication.
Monitor the useful outcome
Track unsupported claims found before publication and recurring categories of factual error.
Keep a short record of the original symptom, the evidence behind the diagnosis, and the result of the acceptance check. That record makes the solution reusable when the same condition appears again, without assuming that every superficially similar problem has the same cause.