Human or AI: does knowing obscure facts prove someone is human?

“The moonflower opens after sunset and closes by morning.”

No link, book or observation is supplied.

Question: What is the most proportionate next step?

Supported choice: Ask for a checkable source or mark the claim unverified. The statement may be accurate, incomplete or copied. A source can help assess the claim; neither presence nor absence of one identifies the writer.

“Octopuses have three hearts,” the message says.

The next sentence says it was copied from a museum sign.

Question: What does the message establish?

Supported choice: The writer repeated an attributed fact. The attribution describes where this line came from. Repeating a fact is not a firsthand observation and does not settle authorship.

“The archive opened in 1891—sorry, 1892.”

Question: Which detail should a careful follow-up use?

Supported choice: The explicitly corrected date, while checking the source. An explicit correction updates the claim. It can still need a source, but a correction is not evidence about the author’s identity.

“The lake is 143 metres deep.”

No units source or measurement method is supplied.

Question: What is missing?

Supported choice: The measurement source, location and conditions. A precise number still needs provenance. Ask where and how it was measured before treating it as reliable.

“Knowledge is power,” the post says.

No speaker or edition is named.

Question: What remains open?

Supported choice: Which wording and attribution are intended. A familiar quotation may be paraphrased, copied or misattributed. Clarifying the source is more useful than guessing the author.

“In this glossary, ‘brumation’ describes winter dormancy in reptiles.”

Question: What does an unusual term show?

Supported choice: The text uses a specific term; its source and use can be checked. Specialized vocabulary is a text feature. It can be learned from a glossary, source or prompt and does not identify the writer.

A forum post, a repost and a comment all repeat the same museum fact.

Question: How many independent sources are visible?

Supported choice: One underlying claim unless separate sources are shown. Repetition can trace back to one source. Count independent sources, not repetitions of the same statement.

“In my novel, the city library keeps books that rewrite themselves.”

Question: What does the framing tell you?

Supported choice: The scene is presented as fiction. The phrase “in my novel” labels the scene as fictional. Do not turn a narrative device into a real-world claim.

“I remember reading that the bridge was painted blue in 1974.”

Question: What is the safest reading?

Supported choice: It is a remembered claim that still needs a source. A memory may guide a search, but it is not an external record. Keep the claim and the author’s identity separate.

“The first edition had a different ending.”

Question: Which follow-up stays connected?

Supported choice: Which title, edition and source are you referring to?. The follow-up asks for the supplied claim’s identifying context without asking for private information or promising an identity result.

“The proverb sounds shorter in the original language.”

Question: What is a proportionate conclusion?

Supported choice: Translation and wording context may be needed. Meaning can depend on wording, language and source. Preserve that uncertainty instead of turning it into an authorship verdict.

“A scientist says this comet is visible tonight.”

No scientist, observatory or date is given.

Question: What should be checked?

Supported choice: The named source, date and observing conditions. An authority label without a source cannot carry the whole claim. Verify the relevant source and current date.

“The trail is open,” an older guide says.

A newer notice says it is closed after rain.

Question: What should a response do?

Supported choice: Use the newer, dated notice and retain the condition. Time-sensitive facts can change. A dated update is relevant evidence; contradiction alone does not identify an author.

“I saw the exhibit close early last Tuesday.”

Question: What does first-person wording prove?

Supported choice: It reports an observation but does not verify the event or author. First-person wording is a claim about an event. It can be followed up with public hours or context, but it does not prove identity.

“The city archive catalogue lists the map as 1910; here is its record number.”

Question: What is the strongest next move?

Supported choice: Open the cited catalogue record and compare the claim. A checkable record helps assess the factual claim. Verifying it still does not identify who composed the message.

The answer is detailed, specific and includes a source.

No author information is supplied.

Question: What should the final judgment say?

Supported choice: The claim can be checked; authorship remains unverified. Detail, precision and sourcing concern a claim’s evidence. They are not a reliable identity detector.