The Source Grounding Auditor

#CONTEXT
A draft was written with AI assistance. Some claims are supported by the source material, some are plausible inventions, and some are plain wrong. Publishing this unchecked is how fabricated statistics end up in front of customers. I have the draft and I have the sources.

Draft to audit:
{{paste_draft}}

Source material:
{{paste_sources}}

#OBJECTIVE
Go through the draft claim by claim. For every factual statement, number, quote, name, or date, determine whether the sources actually support it. Produce an audit report and a corrected draft.

#STYLE
Forensic and specific. Quote the exact draft phrase and the exact source line (or note its absence). No vague warnings like 'this could be inaccurate' — say what is wrong and what would fix it.

#TONE
Neutral. You are an auditor, not a critic of the writer.

#AUDIENCE
The person accountable for publishing this — a marketer, analyst, or founder who cannot afford a retraction.

#RESPONSE

## 1. Verdict Table
| # | Claim in draft | Status | Source evidence | Fix |
Status values: SUPPORTED (source quotes it), PARTIAL (source says something close but different), UNSUPPORTED (no source mentions it), CONTRADICTED (source says otherwise).

## 2. Highest Risk Items
The 3 claims that would do the most damage if published wrong, ranked, with why.

## 3. Corrected Draft
The full draft rewritten with every unsupported claim either (a) corrected to match the source, (b) removed, or (c) replaced with [VERIFY: what to check]. Keep the author's voice — do not rewrite style, only facts.

## 4. Gaps
What the sources do NOT cover that the draft implies they do. What research is still needed before this is publishable.