Overview
How might we make every claim verifiable without forcing people to leave the answer to check sources?
When to use
- Research, search, and RAG products where claims need a trail back to documents or the web.
- Answers that mix retrieval with generation, so people can separate evidence from synthesis.
- Regulated or high-stakes domains (news, finance, health) where unverifiable answers create risk.
- Any surface where “trust the model” is not enough and inspectable provenance is required.
When to skip
- Purely creative or opinionated generation where inventing sources would mislead.
- Offline or closed-corpus tools with no retrievable documents to cite.
- Tiny UI surfaces where chips destroy readability; prefer a single Sources entry instead.
States
Design the whole verification ladder, not only a footnote list at the bottom of the answer.
- 01
Retrieving
Search or RAG is in progress. Research steps may show; claim chips are not final yet.
- 02
Grounded
The answer is visible with claim-adjacent chips that identify publishers or domains.
- 03
Previewing
A bottom sheet shows title, excerpt, and optional 1/N paging for that claim’s sources.
- 04
Auditing
A source-count row (favicon stack + N sources) summarizes what grounded the answer.
- 05
Challenging
The person marks an individual source as wrong so retrieval can improve on the next pass.
- 06
Updated
Citations or the answer refresh after feedback, regen, or a deeper research pass.
Key UX elements
The parts that must be present for citations to build trust.
Claim chip
Put publisher identity on the claim.
Show favicon + domain next to the statement, not anonymous numbers alone.
Multi-source
Expose +N when more than one source supports a claim.
The count opens that claim’s sources in the sheet so each one can be inspected.
Preview
Show title and excerpt in-product.
Open a bottom sheet from the chip so people can verify without a new tab.
Audit
Summarize sources under the answer.
A favicon stack plus source count shows what was used without a separate “view all” link.
Provenance
Say what was searched or used.
Research steps or a short provenance summary explain how the answer was grounded.
Correction
Let people challenge a bad source.
Wrong-source feedback belongs on the individual source in the sheet, not as a global dump.
Rules
Footnote-only lists that force readers to leave the claim to verify.
Anonymous numbered markers with no publisher or title identity.
Citations that open a new tab for every check with no in-product preview.
Aggregating sources behind +N with no way to inspect each one.
Evidence
| Product | Implementation |
|---|---|
| Perplexity | Domain +N chips inline, research steps, Links tab, and Wrong sources feedback. |
| ChatGPT | Publisher chips, claim popovers with 1/N paging, and a Sources sidebar. |
| Google AI Overviews | Numbered markers in the overview with related source links alongside. |
| Bing Copilot | Inline citations tied to web results in the answer pane. |
