TrueStandard
AI writes confident.
Not correct.
Check every claim before your name is on it. Paste a draft — four models from four labs hand back the ones they disagree on, in 60 seconds.
More than one in three marketers (36.5%) say hallucinated AI content has already gone out publicly. — NP Digital, AI Hallucinations and Accuracy Report, Feb 2026, n=565
Free check runs one model on one claim, no signup. Four-model runs need an account.
You read it twice. 24 factual claims in the sample draft below, 3 of them wrong — and nothing on the page tells you which.
Every claim carries a label. 3 challenged, 2 partial, the rest verified, with the fixes ordered by what gets screenshotted first.
01 A model can't grade its own answer.
Ask the model that wrote it to double-check and it always finds an error — so neither answer was trustworthy. In our own 80-prompt test, GPT picked its own answer about 70% of the time as judge, against a roughly 33% impartial baseline.
A model can't grade its own answer.
Four labs, not four prompts.
Disagreement is the finding.
Ship a receipt, not a promise.
02 The check, end to end.
Paste a draft and four models from four labs read it separately. Nothing ships unlabeled — every claim comes back Verified, Partially Verified or Challenged, with the fixes ordered by what gets screenshotted first.
Gate A · four labs, no self-grading Gate B · no claim ships unlabeled
New research confirms intermittent fasting reduces inflammation by 70%.
It goes out to 50,000 subscribers. One reader checks the number. The screenshot outlives the issue.
Research shows intermittent fasting reduces CRP markers by 28–30%.
17 minutes of fixes. No correction email — and a report that shows exactly what you checked.
'Extend Lifespan by Up to 20 Years'
No human study supports this claim. Mouse studies show 10-15% lifespan extension. Extrapolating to '20 years' in humans is unsupported.
'A Harvard Study'
Multiple Harvard-affiliated studies on fasting exist with varying conclusions. No specific paper, authors, or year cited.
17 minutes of fixes prevents a correction email to 50,000 subscribers
Sample draft · 1,200 words · checked in 52 seconds
03 They Published Without Checking
These aren't hypothetical risks. These are real outcomes from the last 18 months.
$67.4B in global business losses from AI hallucinations in 2024. Employees spend 4.3 hours/week verifying AI output. — McKinsey, Suprmind 2026
Published 77 AI-written articles. 41 needed corrections.
53% error rate. AI publishing program paused.
AI bot auto-published summaries with errors for months.
36+ corrections in 3 months. Staffers couldn't stop it.
Published article with AI-hallucinated quotes.
Reporter fired. March 2026.
Submitted AI-fabricated case citations to federal court.
$5,000 fine. Career-defining embarrassment.
One verification step would have caught every one of these.
Written for solo newsletter publishers, independent journalists, and content teams.
04 Simple Pricing. Real Value.
One prevented correction pays for months of service.
For writers who want to check drafts before publishing
- ✓ Council check. 4 AI models, every claim
- ✓ Verified / Partially Verified / Challenged labels
- ✓ Prioritized fix list per draft
- ✓ Credit estimate before every run
For writers and teams who publish frequently
- ✓ Everything in Pro
- ✓ Deep check. The 4 models argue it out, then a mediator rules
- ✓ Verification reports you can share
- ✓ Export for editors and clients
- ✓ Email support
Best for daily publishers and content teams
For agencies running verification at volume
- ✓ Everything in Team
- ✓ Advanced model routing
- ✓ Priority model access
- ✓ Priority email support
Why Not Just Use ChatGPT to Check?
Asking the same AI that wrote your draft to fact-check it is like asking a student to grade their own test. TrueStandard runs your claims through four independent models. When they disagree, you know exactly where to look.
One prevented correction email is worth more than a year of TrueStandard.
Is AI Getting More Accurate?
No. OpenAI's o3 hallucinates 33% of the time. o4-mini hits 48%. Newer 'reasoning' models hallucinate more, not less. Two independent research teams have shown that hallucination elimination is mathematically impossible with current LLM architecture.
This isn't a bug being fixed. Multi-model verification is structurally necessary.
Every plan includes claim-by-claim verification, prioritized fix lists, and full transparency. We never train on your data, on any plan. Cancel anytime.
05 Check Your Draft Before Your Readers Do
60 seconds. Four models. Every claim checked. Paste your draft and see what TrueStandard catches.
An AI fact checker for everything you publish with AI
TrueStandard is an AI fact checker that verifies the claims in your AI-written drafts across four models at once. Instead of trusting a single model to check its own work, it flags every claim the models disagree on, from fabricated citations to invented statistics and wrong dates, so you can verify AI content before it reaches your readers, not after.
See how the AI fact checker works →Common Questions
Paste your draft or a specific claim. TrueStandard sends it to four independent AI models. Each one fact-checks your claims separately. You get a report showing which claims are Verified, Partially Verified, or Challenged, with a prioritized list of what to fix before publishing.
Asking ChatGPT to check work it helped you write is circular. It tends to agree with its own output. TrueStandard uses four independent models that cross-check each other, so disagreements surface errors a single model would miss.
Overclaimed statistics ('reduces by 70%' when research says 28%), unsourced claims ('a Harvard study' with no specific paper), outdated facts, and confidently wrong assertions. The claims most likely to be screenshotted if wrong.
About 60 seconds for a typical article. Compare that to 30-60 minutes of manually Googling each claim and cross-referencing sources.
Consensus shows confidence, not certainty. When models agree, you can publish with higher confidence. When they disagree, you know exactly where to focus. TrueStandard flags uncertainty rather than hiding it.
No. TrueStandard flags risky claims and explains why they're problematic. You see exactly what's wrong and what the evidence actually says, but the rewriting stays in your hands.
Never. We use enterprise API agreements with all model providers. Your drafts are never used to train models.
Yes. Every check produces a verification report with claim-by-claim results, confidence levels, and timestamps. Share it with editors, clients, or attach it to internal docs.