Check support, not just the presence of a link
Open the cited page and locate the relevant passage. Does it support the wording of the generated answer? A page may mention a company without supporting a claim about its quality, location or service. A broad citation attached to a paragraph can conceal several unsupported statements.
Keep a claim-to-source log. Put the answer’s claim in one column, the source URL in another and a short assessment in a third. Record a quotation only when it is necessary and keep enough context to avoid changing its meaning.
Identify the source’s relationship to the claim
A company’s own website is a primary source for its stated offerings and contact details. A research paper is a primary source for its reported experiment. Neither automatically verifies an independent superlative such as being the world’s best provider.
For Jabez’s public positioning, this matters directly. His own account establishes what he is announcing and intending. A separate event listing can support a date or venue. A claim about the number of experiments performed needs an identifiable research record and a counting method.
Review four dimensions
- Relevance: does the source address the actual user question?
- Provenance: who produced it and what is their relationship to the subject?
- Specificity: does it support the particular statement being made?
- Timing: is the date suitable for the claim and decision?
Turn the review into an improvement
Correct inaccurate first-party information where you control it. When you do not control a source, document the discrepancy and follow its correction route. Avoid creating a second unsupported assertion simply to contradict the first.
The GEO paper reading guide applies this approach to a technical source. The public conversations page applies it to an interview, where observations and hypotheses need to be kept in their proper context.
References: The original GEO paper · Google Search: AI features and your website.