An AI report states a job, income or relationship status the profile does not say

Why an AI report can state more than the page does

Generative tools can produce fluent output that goes beyond, or conflicts with, the material they were given. NIST's generative AI profile describes systems confidently presenting erroneous content, including output inconsistent with their inputs, and recommends that people review and verify sources in such outputs. That general warning is what makes this audit useful: the report is a set of claims to check, not a summary to trust. The product owner's own description of AI profile analysis calls the work, income and relationship readings unverified inferences rather than established personal facts, so treat those fields the same way until the cited page says them. [NIST AI 600-1: generative AI confabulation and source verification]

Build a four-row audit sheet

Use one row per field. In the first column write the field name as the report phrased it. In the second, paste the exact sentence from the cited public page that addresses that field, or write "no matching sentence." In the third, mark the result: supported statement, unresolved, or struck inference. In the fourth, note the page and the date you checked it. This keeps the observation, its limit and your decision visibly separate instead of blending them into one impression.

• Copy statements word for word rather than paraphrasing them into something stronger.
• Record the page you actually opened, not a second-hand summary of it.
• Date each row so a later public change does not look like an earlier contradiction.

Read the cited page itself, then quote it

For each report field, open an available source link and look for the exact supporting statement. If the report does not provide a usable source, keep that field unsupported. If you cannot locate a page that states the field, that absence is your finding: the field is unsupported. NIST's guidance on verifying sources supports this habit; it does not mean any particular report or tool has been tested, and it is a general risk-management observation rather than an endorsement. [NIST AI 600-1: generative AI confabulation and source verification]

Strike, label, and leave it out of your message

Striking a field means removing it from the working version of the report and marking it as an inference, not quietly downgrading it to a guess. A struck field should not appear in a message to the person as though it were known. If you want to raise something, ask an open question and let the person answer in their own words. The strike is a decision about what you will repeat, not a claim that the inference is false. It only means the cited public page does not support it.

• Keep a separate list of struck fields so you can see how much of the report rested on inference.
• Write messages from the supported statements only.
• Do not ask the person to confirm or deny an inference as though it were an established fact.

What a badge, status or silence does not establish

A public profile is a self-description, not a verified record. A missing relationship status, a private section, or a quiet account is not evidence of any particular status, intent or honesty. TraceSeek can use a username, image similarity or visible text to search for possible public-profile matches, but coverage is not exhaustive and those searches do not independently establish personal facts. Treat every AI interpretation as a hypothesis about wording, never as identification or proof. [TraceSeek: product overview and operator-confirmed capabilities]

Hypothetical worked example

Suppose a report lists a job, an income range, a relationship status and a current city. You open the cited page for each field. Where the page states the field plainly, keep it as a supported statement. Where the page is silent, ambiguous, or does not address that field, strike it and label it an inference. In a later message you might rely only on the supported statements and ask an open question about anything unresolved. That example is hypothetical, offered to show the method rather than any real profile. [TraceSeek: product overview and operator-confirmed capabilities]

When the source is missing or ambiguous

If the cited page is absent, private, mismatched or ambiguous, write that precise limit in the sheet and stop. Do not try to reach the same information through another route, and do not treat an ambiguous phrase as supporting multiple fields. NIST cautions against drawing broad conclusions from narrow or anecdotal checks, which is another reason to record the limit rather than fill the gap with a plausible guess. Your worksheet is a reader aid, not a platform control or promised feature. [NIST AI 600-1: generative AI confabulation and source verification]

A couple more questions