Unsourced assertions must be marked as such

What it is

In one paragraph, a statistic carries a source and the next causal claim carries none. Same type, same tone: the unmarked sentence borrows light from the marked one and is read as equally grounded. Marking unsourced claims requires that an assertion the system cannot back with a record be labelled “unsourced” at sentence grain, not implied by the mere absence of a superscript.

Absence is not readable. Not marking does not mean “the reader will take it as speculation.”

Why it happens

People read expository prose with a publishing schema: a declarative sentence in the body is a fact the author is willing to stand behind. A superscript marks “this one is sourced.” A sentence without a superscript does not automatically receive the mark “this one is unsourced” — it is merely unnoticed. Sourced sentences also pull neighbouring unsourced ones into the same credibility band, because the paragraph is treated as one evidence unit.

An explicit mark flips the default: unsourced is a positive state that must occupy visual rank. Otherwise a sourcing system only rewards sentences that have sources and stays silent about sentences that do not — and silence is the vacancy most easily filled with “probably sourced too.”

Studying it

Build paragraphs: some sentences with openable sources, some unsourced assertions, randomly placed. One condition leaves unsourced sentences unmarked; another marks them “unsourced / model inference” beside the sentence. Ask of each sentence whether it is sourced and whether the person would act on it. Independent variables: presence and style of the unsourced mark, adjacency of sourced and unsourced sentences. Dependent variables: rate of judging unsourced sentences as sourced, rate of willingness to act on them.

Report the adjacency effect: in the unmarked condition, are unsourced sentences immediately after a sourced one misjudged more often.

Where it stops holding

When a whole piece is unsourced creation or chat, marking every sentence “unsourced” becomes noise; say it once at piece level rather than superscript by superscript. Assertions that cannot legally exist in unsourced form (dosing, legal consequences) should not be emitted, not emitted-and-marked. When the user asked only to make a passage smoother and no new fact is introduced, each sentence need not be marked unsourced. This entry governs the default reading of unsourced sentences in mixed prose. It does not treat whether a source supports its sentence.

Applying it

• For a factual assertion that cannot be given a record, put an “unsourced” mark beside that sentence at the same salience as a source superscript. Do not rely on the superscript failing to appear.
• Do not set unsourced assertions and sourced facts in the same paragraph without distinction. Split the paragraph or mark sentence by sentence.
• If a class of assertion is not allowed to exist unsourced (a dose, a legal consequence), delete the sentence; do not let a mark substitute for refusal.
• Check: strip every unsourced mark and ask “which sentences are sourced.” If unsourced sentences are widely taken as sourced, the default is already lying for the system. Put the marks back and ask again; misjudgment should drop.

Related

• Same group: L3.02.1 Factual content must be traceable to a source · L3.02.2 Attribution must be verifiable, not a list of names
• Nearby: L3.08 Source Attribution of Generated Results · L3.03 Hallucination and the Fact-Checking Burden
• Search terms: unsourced assertion · marking unsourced claims · default of sourcing