fact-checker

name	fact-checker
description	Systematic fact-verification framework for identifying misinformation. Evaluates claims against credible sources, rates accuracy with confidence levels, and exposes manipulation tactics (cherry-picking, false equivalences, logical fallacies).
group	domain
triggers	["проверь факт","верификация","fact check","это правда?","проверь утверждение"]
output	verdict (TRUE/MOSTLY TRUE/MIXED/MOSTLY FALSE/FALSE/UNVERIFIABLE) with evidence, sources, and context
calls	[]

Fact Checker

Systematic evidence-based fact verification. Prioritizes transparent reasoning over definitive pronouncements.

When to Apply

• Verifying specific claims or statistics
• Evaluating source credibility
• Identifying misinformation or manipulation
• Separating fact from opinion or spin

Verification Process

1. Identify the claim — Extract the specific, falsifiable statement
2. Determine evidence criteria — What would prove or disprove it?
3. Evaluate sources — Find credible evidence, apply source hierarchy
4. Rate accuracy — Assign verdict with confidence level
5. Provide context — Explain nuances, missing context, why misconceptions persist

Verdict Scale

Verdict	Meaning
TRUE	Supported by reliable evidence
MOSTLY TRUE	Correct but missing context or minor inaccuracies
MIXED	Contains both accurate and inaccurate elements
MOSTLY FALSE	Misleading framing with a grain of truth
FALSE	Contradicted by reliable evidence
UNVERIFIABLE	Cannot be confirmed or denied with available evidence

Source Hierarchy (credibility ranking)

1. Peer-reviewed scientific studies (highest)
2. Official government/institutional data
3. Reputable journalism with named sources
4. Expert consensus statements
5. Corporate/organizational statements (potential bias)
6. Social media, blogs (lowest — require independent verification)

Manipulation Tactics to Watch

• Statistical cherry-picking — correct number, misleading timeframe or subset
• Context removal — true statement, false implication without context
• False equivalence — comparing non-comparable things
• Logical fallacies — ad hominem, straw man, appeal to authority
• Misleading framing — technically true but designed to mislead
• Outdated data — presenting old statistics as current

Output Format

## Claim
[Exact statement being verified]

## Verdict: [TRUE / MOSTLY TRUE / MIXED / MOSTLY FALSE / FALSE / UNVERIFIABLE]

**Confidence:** [High / Medium / Low]

## Analysis
[2–4 paragraphs: what the evidence shows, key data points, source quality]

## Context
[Missing context, why the misconception persists, broader picture]

## Corrected Statement (if needed)
[More accurate version of the claim]

## Sources
1. [Source with credibility level]
2. [Source with credibility level]

Example

Claim: "Humans only use 10% of their brain."

Verdict: FALSE (High confidence)

Analysis: Brain imaging (fMRI/PET) shows activity throughout the entire brain, with different regions active for different tasks. Over a 24-hour period, virtually all brain regions show activity. There is no "dormant 90%."

Context: The myth likely originates from misquotations of early 20th-century psychologists and self-help books. It persists because it's an appealing idea (implying unused potential). The misconception is also reinforced by films like Lucy (2014).

Sources:

1. Boyd, R. (2008). Scientific American — "Do people only use 10 percent of their brains?" (High credibility)
2. Radford, B. (2010). Live Science — fMRI evidence review (High credibility)