How to Check AI Content Before You Publish

A detector can give your draft a reassuring score while its pricing comparison is still wrong. Nothing about sounding human makes a claim true.

If you use AI to help market your product, your review needs to answer two separate questions: where did this content come from, and can you back up what it says?

Text detectors, watermarks, and source checks answer different parts of that problem. Treating any one of them as approval leaves the rest unchecked.

Before you publish, check the claims your reader might act on. Keep enough evidence to explain how you reached them.

What should an AI authenticity check actually check?

An AI authenticity check should separate evidence about how content was made from evidence that its claims are correct. Those are different questions, and they need different checks.

For text, a detector estimates whether writing resembles AI-generated text. Grammarly’s detector describes its result as how much of a piece “appears to be written with AI.” That wording matters. It describes the writing, not whether the article’s advice holds up.

For supported images and audio, OpenAI’s Verify looks for signals associated with OpenAI tools. That can help establish something about a file’s origin. It doesn’t establish that the scene or message is true.

Before you choose a tool, write down what you need to know:

• Did AI help create or edit this content?
• Does each important factual claim have supporting evidence?
• Does the draft accurately describe your product and its limits?
• Can you explain what you checked and what remains uncertain?

For a product article, the second and third questions deserve your attention first. A reader choosing software needs the comparison to be correct. A sentence that sounds human won’t rescue a feature claim you can’t support.

If your task concerns who created an image, use a tool that checks supported origin signals. If your task concerns whether an article is accurate, open its sources.

You can use both checks. Just record their results separately. “No supported signal detected” belongs in a different field from “claim supported by the linked source.” Combining them into a single pass mark hides what you actually know.

A detector score cannot approve your article

Scribbr explicitly says no AI detector can provide complete accuracy. A low score therefore cannot prove human authorship, and it says nothing about whether your article’s claims are correct.

Detector vendors also present accuracy claims that need careful reading. Grammarly advertises 99% detection accuracy and a top ranking on the RAID benchmark. Phrasly advertises 99.8% accuracy, while warning against using its results to punish students or writers.

Those are the vendors’ stated figures. The supplied pages don’t establish how either figure applies to your particular draft. Don’t turn them into a guarantee that a score correctly describes every sentence you publish.

More importantly, identifying AI-written text and checking facts are separate jobs. Even a perfect answer to “was AI involved?” wouldn’t tell you whether a product still offers the feature described.

Suppose your draft compares your app with a competitor. The article could pass a detector while claiming that a feature exists on the wrong plan. That example needs a pricing or product source, not another detector run.

Set a clear rule for your own review: a detector result never changes an unsupported claim to approved.

If you choose to run a detector, keep its result as a limited observation. Don’t rewrite accurate copy merely to chase a lower score. Review whether the wording is clear, whether the claim is supported, and whether the reader could misunderstand it.

Your publishing decision should survive even if you remove the detector score from the screen. If the score is the only reason you trust the draft, you haven’t checked enough.

How do you turn an AI draft into a claim list?

Extract every statement a reader could reasonably ask you to prove. A claim list gives you specific items to review instead of asking whether an entire article feels trustworthy.

Scribbr’s warning about incomplete detector accuracy is a reason to avoid using a text score as your review shortcut. Build a separate step that identifies what needs evidence. You can ask an AI tool to prepare that list, but treat its output as a draft too.

Start with claims that could affect a buying decision:

• Numbers, including prices, limits, and measured results.
• Quotes and statements attributed to another person or company.
• Product features, supported formats, and plan restrictions.
• Comparisons such as “cheaper,” “faster,” or “includes more.”
• Promises about what your product will do for a customer.

For each item, save the exact sentence from the draft. Add the supporting URL, the relevant passage, and your review status. Use simple statuses such as “supported,” “needs checking,” and “remove.”

Ask the tool to flag missing evidence rather than supply a plausible-looking citation. You want gaps to stay visible until you resolve them.

Then read the draft yourself. Look for factual claims hiding inside casual language. “Works with your existing tools” needs checking just as much as a formal feature table. “No setup required” is a promise, even without a number attached.

Keep advice separate from reported facts. “I’d start with the lower plan” is a recommendation. “The lower plan includes this feature” needs evidence.

You don’t need a complicated system. A document or table is enough if it makes every important claim easy to find, check, and correct before publication.

A working link can still support the wrong claim

OpenAI’s Verify page says the tool currently supports images and audio files. Linking to that page wouldn’t support a claim that Verify checks whether a blog post was written by a human.

The URL would work. The source would be relevant to AI-generated content. The sentence would still be wrong.

That distinction is the core of a useful source check. Open the page and compare its wording with your draft. Don’t approve a claim because the source discusses the same broad topic.

For each important statement, ask:

1. Does the source say what the draft says?
2. Does it describe the same product, format, or plan?
3. Did the draft drop a limit or condition?
4. Does the evidence support the strength of the wording?

Pay particular attention to pricing and feature comparisons. If you claim a feature comes with a subscription, the source needs to connect that feature to that subscription. A general product page may leave that question unanswered.

Quotes need the same care. Check the words and the surrounding explanation. A sentence about detecting supported signals shouldn’t become a promise to detect all AI content.

Save the passage that supports the claim alongside the URL. That makes a later review easier and shows what you relied on when you approved the draft.

If the evidence supports a narrower statement, narrow your copy. “Checks supported images and audio for origin signals” is more useful than an impressive claim the source never made.

If you can’t find support, remove the claim or hold the article. A citation is useful because of what it proves, not because a blue link makes the paragraph look researched.

What do Verify and SynthID actually tell you?

OpenAI’s Verify checks uploaded images and audio for supported signals associated with OpenAI tools. Its page names C2PA metadata and SynthID watermarks among the signals it looks for.

Provenance means information about where content came from or how someone created it. That information can help you assess a file’s origin. It doesn’t replace checking the claims made about the file.

Google DeepMind describes SynthID as a tool that embeds and identifies digital watermarks in supported AI-generated content. Its page covers images, audio, text, and video.

That broader list doesn’t mean every person can upload every kind of content to every tool. Keep a watermark system’s coverage separate from the upload options of a particular checker.

The useful distinction is between these tools’ jobs:

• A text detector assesses whether writing appears AI-generated.
• A tool such as Verify checks files for supported origin signals.
• A source review checks whether evidence supports a factual statement.

For example, if you’re checking an audio clip, a detected watermark may help establish how it was made. It doesn’t establish that the speaker’s apparent statement describes a real event.

Likewise, a generated product illustration can be clearly labelled and still misrepresent what your software does. You need to compare the image with the product before you use it as evidence.

Record the tool, the file, and the exact result when you run an origin check. Keep your interpretation next to that result, rather than silently turning “signal detected” into “safe to publish.”

Use the evidence for the question it can answer. Readers deserve an accurate description of what you checked, including the limits of the tool you used.

Why doesn’t a missing signal prove human authorship?

A file without a detected origin signal may still be AI-generated. OpenAI’s Verify checks for supported signals associated with its tools, rather than promising to identify every AI-created file.

A missing signal leaves several possibilities open. The file may come from an unsupported tool, or metadata may no longer be present. The check alone doesn’t tell you which explanation applies.

Don’t collapse uncertainty into a positive claim. “No supported signal detected” is a result you can report. “Verified human-made” goes further than that result supports.

Watermarks and metadata also deserve separate treatment. Google DeepMind says SynthID’s image and video watermarks are designed to withstand changes such as cropping, filters, and lossy compression. That doesn’t make every origin signal permanent, or turn every negative result into proof.

If you receive a file from someone else, ask for evidence beyond a checker result:

• The original file, where available.
• A description of how they created and edited it.
• Relevant drafts or earlier versions.
• Permission to use it in the way you intend.

These are suggested review steps, not a guarantee that you can settle every question about origin. Keep unanswered questions visible.

For your own content, save the original generated file and the version you publish. Note edits that change what a reader sees or hears.

If you can’t establish how a file was made, say that plainly or choose a different file. Don’t manufacture certainty because your publishing schedule needs an answer. “We couldn’t confirm the origin” is more accurate than treating a blank result as a clean bill of health.

How do you make this a repeatable publishing check?

Block publication when an important factual claim lacks evidence. Make that rule part of your writing process, rather than a decision you revisit when a draft feels nearly finished.

Grammarly’s detector describes its score as how much text appears AI-generated. Keep that narrow result separate from the decision to publish. Your approval should depend on the claims, the sources, and the finished piece.

For a solo founder, the process can stay small:

1. Draft from a source pack you’ve already selected.
2. Extract claims and attach the supporting passages.
3. Check the exact wording against each source.
4. Remove or correct claims you can’t support.
5. Save the approved draft and review record together.

Define “important” by what your reader might do next. A price, a feature limit, or a promise about results deserves a hard stop if you can’t support it. You can edit an awkward transition without reopening the whole review.

If you automate part of the process, let the tool collect claims and flag empty evidence fields. Don’t let it mark its own claims as true merely because it found a related page. You still need to decide whether that page supports the sentence.

Keep the earlier draft, the sources you used, and a short note explaining corrections. If someone challenges a claim, those records give you something concrete to inspect. They also help you explain what changed without guessing from memory.

The aim isn’t to prove that no AI touched your article. It’s to publish something you can defend.

Before your next post goes live, choose the claim most likely to affect a purchase. Open its source and find the exact supporting passage. If you can’t find it, fix that sentence before you publish.