What this guide helps you do
Fact-check an AI-generated documentary or YouTube video
Key takeaways
- Extract checkable claims instead of reviewing the script by impression.
- Verify visual implications separately from narration.
- Preserve source, reviewer, decision, and correction records.
Film evidence
Fact-check the words and the visual implications
A conventional transcript check would cover the date, location, eruption sequence, and other explicit claims. An AI documentary review must also inspect what the images imply: exact clothing, architecture, crowd behavior, weather, and proximity can communicate certainty even when narration stays cautious.
Create a claim ledger with the wording, source, confidence, scene, visual risk, and decision. Verify quotations and identities at item level, replace unsupported specifics, and distinguish reconstruction in the viewing context. The film is ready only when narration, captions, image, description, and source notes tell a compatible truth.
Pompeii: Vesuvius Erupts · 01:01 · Historical reconstruction. This is a finished first-party Onira production, not customer proof or archive footage.
View the full film and production notesWhat to watch for
- Every material narrated claim has a defensible source
- Visual details are classified by evidence strength
- Corrections propagate into audio, captions, and affected scenes
Section 1
Create a claim inventory
Read the final narration and list every checkable statement: names, dates, quantities, quotations, firsts, causes, consequences, locations, titles, and claims about what a person believed or intended. Break compound sentences into separate claims so one supported clause does not hide another unsupported one.
Classify each entry as documented fact, attributed interpretation, creator inference, or visual reconstruction. The classification determines how the line should be sourced and worded.
- +Atomic claim text and timestamp.
- +Claim type and required evidence level.
- +Source, reviewer, status, and correction note.
Section 2
Trace claims to the strongest available source
Prefer authoritative primary material for direct records and reliable secondary sources for context and interpretation. Check the actual source rather than relying on a search snippet, generated summary, or citation copied from another article.
Confirm that the source supports the precise wording. A page mentioning two events does not necessarily establish causality between them. A quotation needs the original speaker, wording, context, and translation checked when possible.
- +Open and read the supporting passage.
- +Match certainty in the script to certainty in the evidence.
- +Use attribution where interpretation or dispute matters.
Section 3
Audit what the visuals assert
A scene can make a factual claim without words. Clothing may place a person in the wrong century. Architecture may imply the wrong region. A generated newspaper or inscription may appear to document a statement that never existed.
Review each realistic scene against period, geography, identity, and event constraints. Replace exact evidentiary visuals with verified assets or clearly illustrative treatment when the generation cannot be trusted to carry the fact.
- +People, likeness, clothing, objects, and architecture.
- +Geography, weather, scale, and chronology.
- +Text, maps, documents, insignia, and symbols.
Section 4
Close the review and keep a correction trail
No unresolved high-risk claim should reach publication. Rewrite overconfident statements, remove unsupported detail, replace misleading scenes, and recheck captions after every narration edit. Record the final source set and the person responsible for sign-off.
After publication, provide a correction path and update the description or film when a material error is found. A transparent correction is a stronger trust signal than pretending the production process is infallible.
- +Zero unresolved high-risk claims.
- +Captions and chapter text match the corrected narration.
- +Source pack, sign-off, and correction log are retained.
Working standard
Publication checklist
- 01Every checkable statement appears in a claim inventory.
- 02Each material claim has an opened and reviewed source.
- 03Certainty and attribution match the evidence.
- 04Quotations, translations, names, and numbers are checked.
- 05Realistic visuals are reviewed for implied factual claims.
- 06The final source pack and correction log are preserved.
Primary references
Sources and further reading
Policy and model capabilities change. These sources were reviewed on July 11, 2026; open the current official page before making a production or publication decision.
Related production guides
Questions
Can an AI fact-check its own documentary script?
AI can help extract claims and locate possible sources, but a reviewer should open the sources, assess their authority, and verify that they support the exact wording and visual implication.
What claims need the most scrutiny?
Quotations, accusations, medical or financial claims, disputed history, precise statistics, causal claims, living people, and realistic scenes presented near factual narration deserve heightened review.
Should sources appear in the YouTube description?
Publishing useful source notes can strengthen transparency, but the private production record should be more detailed and map important claims to their supporting material.