How to look for contradictions in a text with AI
Looking for contradictions with AI requires comparing claims about the same object, period and conditions. Different sentences may describe a legitimate exception rather than an error in a document.
This tutorial aims to produce a list of possible conflicts for review. The tool should not decide which rule is true without support or silently rewrite material to make it appear consistent.
1. Identify the material and version
Record the document, date and passages examined. If two versions are involved, identify the current one or mark that information as unresolved.
Do not treat an update as a contradiction merely because an earlier rule changed. What matters is understanding which instructions apply to the same situation.
2. Turn sentences into comparable claims
For each important point, note the subject, condition, deadline and source. That can expose differences hidden in continuous prose.
| Element | Comparison question |
|---|---|
| Object | Do both sentences discuss the same thing? |
| Audience | Do they apply to the same group? |
| Period | Do they share the same effective period? |
| Condition | Are their exceptions identical? |
| Obligation | Is this permission, a requirement or a possibility? |
This organization does not eliminate interpretation. It makes clearer what must be confirmed before calling two sentences incompatible.
3. Test a small fictional case
Imagine one section says “registration until November 10” and another says “registration until November 12”. There is a possible conflict, but you still need to know whether both cover the same event and audience.
If the second date applies only to invited participants, a condition may explain the difference. Review should preserve that possibility rather than independently choosing the later date.
Keep a known non-conflict in the test as well: two different events can legitimately have different deadlines. A reviewer that flags every difference may produce a long report without identifying useful conflicts.
4. Request paired evidence
Provide delimited text and require two passages for every suspicion. This avoids a vague problem list nobody can locate.
Look for possible contradictions in the identified material below.
For each case, show claim A, claim B and their source passages.
Compare object, audience, period, conditions and degree of obligation.
Classify as apparent conflict, potentially explained difference or insufficient information.
Explain which question would resolve the case.
Do not choose a winning rule without a source or authorized decision.
Do not edit the document; return only a review report.
[DOCUMENT AND VERSION]
[AUTHORIZED TEXT]Anthropic’s hallucination guidance provides a reference for grounding in context and acknowledging limits. Check the generated report against original passages too.
5. Review suspicions before correcting
Check whether passages were quoted correctly and whether the tool omitted a sentence resolving the difference. Look for definitions and notes changing the rule’s application.
When evidence is insufficient, take the question to the content owner. The answer should not invent a compromise policy merely to reconcile two instructions.
Separate a genuine contradiction from a sentence that is merely unclear. Both can deserve an edit, but they require different explanations and should not be recorded as the same problem.
6. Record the decision and affected scope
After confirming a conflict, document the source or decision that resolved it. Only then prepare the corresponding editorial change.
Check other affected locations: a corrected date in the body may remain different in a table or callout. Identify the revised version so replaced material is not repeatedly compared.
Common mistakes
Calling every difference a contradiction, mixing unlabeled versions and letting AI choose the convenient rule all produce inappropriate corrections. Treating an empty report as proof that no conflicts exist is another failure.
Result criterion
Every suspicion needs two traceable passages and a contextual explanation. Every accepted correction needs authorized support, with remaining gaps still visible.
See dividing long documents and extracting fields with evidence to prepare the analysis.
Frequently asked questions
Are two different sentences a contradiction?
Not necessarily. They may refer to different audiences, periods, versions or conditions.
Can AI automatically resolve a conflict?
It can suggest questions and edits, but resolution requires an authorized source or decision; do not accept an invented rule.
How should a possible conflict be recorded?
Show both claims, their source passages, context and information needed to decide whether they are incompatible.