Viral Claim Source-Trace Worksheet

For the method in Trace a Viral Claim Before You Share It. Use AI to find and locate sources - never to render a truth verdict.

Not for

Deciding whether a health claim is safe to act on (use the health claim source-trace worksheet instead) or checking an AI-written news summary against its article (use the news summary primary-source check instead).

Step 1: The post as it reached you

• Where I saw it (chat, app, platform):
• Who shared it:
• Screenshot layers between me and any original (0, 1, 2+):

Step 2: The specific, checkable claim (strip the framing)

One plain sentence:

Step 3: Original source search

Step 4: Original-vs-received comparison

• Original date/timestamp:
• Original account matches what the screenshot implied? ☐ Yes ☐ No
• Wording or image matches what I received? ☐ Yes ☐ No
• Anything added (context, date, claim) that is not in the original:

Step 5: Decision

☐ Share as-is - original source confirms the claim as stated ☐ Share with context - real but needs a caveat: ______________________ ☐ Do not share - could not verify origin, or framing has drifted from the original

Reason for this decision, in one sentence:

The three prompts to reuse

1. Extract the checkable claim

Here is a post I received: [paste it]. Extract the single specific,
checkable factual claim being made, in one plain sentence. Ignore the
framing, the emotional language, and any call to action - I only want
the underlying claim and, if visible, the name of the original poster
or outlet.

2. Plan the search for the original

For this claim: "[claim from step 2]" - help me identify what the
original source is likely to be (a specific news outlet, an official
account, a press release, a court filing) and how I would search for
the original post or article directly. Do not tell me whether the
claim is true or what the source says - I will check that myself.

3. Check honesty of framing

Here is what the original source actually shows or says: [paste it].
Help me identify: when this was originally published, what event it
actually documents, and whether the version I received adds any
claim, date, or context that is not present in the original. Do not
tell me whether the overall framing is fair - just show me what
matches and what does not.

Before you forward anything

• I opened the original source myself - I did not trust a description of it
• The wording, date, and account all match what I received
• My decision (share / share with context / do not share) is written down with a reason
• If this claim is medical, I am using the health claim worksheet instead