Output checks

Verification should test claims, calculations, completeness, policy, and action boundaries that matter for the task.

Editorial owner
VMCSoft Digital
Last reviewed
2026-07-28
Review by
2026-10-28
Editorial content risk
highPublishing review classification—not your task assessment.

The practical distinction

Verification should test claims, calculations, completeness, policy, and action boundaries that matter for the task. Output checks derive from the task’s material requirements. Facts, calculations, completeness, policy constraints, and proposed actions need different evidence and should not be collapsed into one subjective quality score.

Worked example

For a recurring report, code recomputes totals, claim-to-source checks bind narrative statements to current values, and the report owner reviews anomalies and distribution. “Looks good” is not a substitute.

Apply it

Use deterministic checks where possible and human judgment where necessary.

  1. Turn each material requirement into a deterministic or qualified-human check.
  2. Run checks before the output is accepted or an action can execute.
  3. Preserve the result, evidence, reviewer, and escalation for each failed check.

Evidence to collect

  • Recompute calculations independently of the generator.
  • Check material claims against exact evidence and required fields against a checklist.
  • Verify that blocked actions cannot bypass preview, approval, or stop conditions.

Common mistake

Adding a generic final review after generation without defining what the reviewer must inspect or what causes rejection.

Scope limit

This guidance on output checks helps define a task and its review evidence. It does not certify a model, source, reviewer, environment, legal position, or residual-risk level.