Credibility review for written content
Check before you trust.
TrustCheck helps you assess whether written content deserves confidence, caution, or closer verification.
It evaluates credibility signals in the text and returns a practical review summary. TrustCheck is not an AI detector and does not guarantee truth or falsity.
Use a sample case to test scoring and interpretation quickly.
A balanced summary with visible sourcing and measured wording.
Expected score behavior: Should trend in the moderate-to-high range due to sourcing, evidence, and caveats.
Expected weak categories: Verification Burden
Sweeping claims with little attribution or evidence.
Expected score behavior: Should trend in the weak range because evidence and sourcing are minimal.
Expected weak categories: Source Visibility, Evidence Quality, Claim Discipline, Confidence Calibration
Polished but generic claims without concrete support.
Expected score behavior: Should trend in the limited-to-weak range due to vague evidence and overconfident tone.
Expected weak categories: Evidence Quality, Source Visibility, Confidence Calibration, Verification Burden
Short persuasive post with urgency and minimal verification detail.
Expected score behavior: Should trend in the weak range because persuasive certainty outruns support.
Expected weak categories: Claim Discipline, Confidence Calibration, Evidence Quality, Fact vs Interpretation
Structured summary with method, findings, and limitations.
Expected score behavior: Should trend in the moderate range with stronger marks for structure and uncertainty handling.
Expected weak categories: Source Visibility, Verification Burden
Cautious wording is paired with identifiable sources, evidence, and context.
Expected score behavior: Should not be penalized for hedging because uncertainty language is supported by named sources, evidence, and context.
Expected weak categories: Verification Burden
Indirect claims use heavy hedging while stronger claims are stated confidently without support.
Expected score behavior: Should trigger hedging-distribution red flags and trend lower due to weak sourcing, weak evidence, and uneven confidence.
Expected weak categories: Source Visibility, Evidence Quality, Confidence Calibration, Claim Discipline
Some caveats are responsible, but other hedged claims avoid accountability.
Expected score behavior: Should show a mixed result: legitimate uncertainty is recognized, but selective vague hedging should reduce calibration confidence and add a targeted red flag.
Expected weak categories: Confidence Calibration, Source Visibility
Check whether a summary includes visible support before sharing it.
Evaluate cover letters or generated drafts for weak or vague claims.
Review persuasive posts to identify where verification is still needed.