Idiomas

Citation Gap Checker

Free, no signup. Find claims that need a source before an answer engine repeats them, and flag dated evidence for a human re-check.

Built by Patrick Stox

Before

“Studies show conversion rose 42% in 2021.”

After

“A 2021 study reported a 42% increase [source]” — then verify the statistic remains applicable.

Pasted content is analyzed in your browser. A URL is sent only to the protected fetch endpoint; paste content takes priority. After a successful URL check, only its domain is remembered locally.

Checks run from our server; we fetch the URL you enter and don't keep the results. The claim pass runs in your browser. Up to 25 cited URLs are sent to the bounded status checker; pasted prose is not sent. Anonymous run-level outcome counters may be used for aggregate research; URLs, domains, IPs, and identifiers are never included, and no statistic is released below 100 runs.

Feedback
Report a bug

Found something broken in Citation Gap Checker? Let us know what happened — this goes straight to a private triage queue, not a public list.

What will be sent 
 No tool inputs, uploads, pasted source, complete results, query parameters, or URL fragments are attached automatically. You can edit or remove the selected passage above. Browser and anti-abuse metadata is processed for spam prevention. 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
Sample report Deterministic local example
 
For “A 2021 study shows checkout changes increased conversion by 42%.”, evaluated in 2026, the engine returns one likely claim and two findings:
 
1 likely claim checked · 2 findings
Missing adjacent source — This claim has no adjacent outbound source link.
Aging evidence — This numeric claim references evidence at least three years old; confirm it still applies.
 
Both findings can be true at once: the sentence needs a source, and the source’s continued applicability needs checking.
 
 
 
How to use it
 
  1. Paste article text or HTML. The content extractor removes markup before sentence analysis.
  2. Select Check citation gaps.
  3. Review every highlighted sentence; use the search link as a research starting point, not as evidence.
  4. Add the most direct primary source beside the claim, or revise the claim when no suitable evidence exists.
 
 
      
     
 
What the results mean
 
  • Missing adjacent source — a likely factual claim contains no URL in the same sentence.
  • Aging evidence — a detected year is at least three years behind the current year.
  • Broken citation / Verify citation — supported by the engine when link-status evidence is supplied, but live status is not evaluated by this page.
  • No finding — no matching pattern was found; it is not an accuracy certificate.
 
How it works
 
The claim pass runs in the browser. It extracts readable blocks, splits them into sentences, and selects likely claims using explicit markers: numbers, percentages, research language, and strong superlative or absolute wording. It checks the same sentence for an HTTP(S) URL, extracts four-digit years, and sends at most 25 cited URLs to the bounded status checker. Evidence at least three years old receives a review flag. No model writes or judges the result.
 
Features
 
  • Accepts plain text or HTML.
  • Finds numerical, comparative, absolute, and research-style claims.
  • Separates missing sourcing from aging-evidence review.
  • Builds a prefilled source-search query for each finding.
  • Keeps pasted content in the browser.
 
Limitations
 
Adjacency is a crude proxy: a URL in the sentence may be irrelevant, while a footnote or nearby citation may be perfectly valid but still missed. The three-year threshold is intentionally generic. The bounded status check does not read papers, assess source quality, or determine whether a citation entails the exact claim. Always verify the primary source and the claim’s scope yourself.
 
Frequently asked questions
What counts as a likely claim?
The checker conservatively looks for sentences with numbers, percentages, research language, or strong comparative and absolute terms such as best, largest, always, and proves. Short fragments are ignored.
Does the tool verify that a citation supports a claim?
No. It does not fetch links or interpret source material. It only checks whether a likely claim has an adjacent URL and whether dated evidence merits a new human review.
Why is a three-year-old statistic flagged?
Three years is a review trigger, not an expiration date. Some evidence remains valid for decades; volatile market, product, and behavior statistics can become stale much sooner.
Can a clean report prove an article is accurate?
No. A clean result only means the local heuristics did not find one of their known patterns. Qualitative assertions, misleading framing, and irrelevant sources still require editorial review.
Does the checker detect broken citation links?
Yes. After the local claim pass, the page sends up to 25 cited URLs to the bounded status checker. A failed status can flag a broken citation or a DOI that needs manual verification; source relevance still requires human review.
 
 
Next stepQuotability & Entity-Preserving Rewriter — generate the corrected version.

People also explore
ToolAI Content AuditToolAI Citation Readiness CheckerToolCommodity Content / Information Gain CheckerArticleContent FreshnessArticleRetrieved vs. Mentioned vs. Cited in AIArticleAI Search Measurement Methodology
 
 
 
Feature requests for Citation Gap Checker
 

Upvote what you want most. New ideas can be submitted from the floating Feedback menu;
      requests appear here once approved, and the most-wanted rise to the top.

   
Loading…
  
  ➕ Request a feature   
New requests are reviewed before they appear here.
 
     
  
  
 
 
 
 
     
      
Sobre a ferramenta
Grátis, sem cadastro. Encontrar afirmações que precisa um origem antes um answer engine repeats them, e flag datado evidência para um humano re-check.
Encontrar unsupported afirmações, aging statistics, e citations que merit um ativo verificação.
Recursos
  • Accepts plain texto ou HTML. Finds numerical, comparative, absolute, e research-style afirmações. Separates ausente sourcing de aging-evidence revisão. Builds um prefilled source-search consulta para cada constatação. Keeps pasted conteúdo em o navegador.
  • O alegação pass runs em o navegador. Isso extracts readable blocks, splits them em sentences, e selects provável afirmações using explicit markers: numbers, percentages, research language, e forte superlative ou absolute wording. Isso verificações o mesmo sentence para um HTTP(S) URL, extracts four-digit years, e sends em most 25 citado URLs para o limitado status verificador. Evidência em least three years antigo receives um revisão flag. Não model grava ou judges o resultado.
  • O alegação pass runs locally e looks para numerical, comparative, e research-style afirmações. Up para 25 citado URLs pode então receive um limitado status verificação. O ferramenta cannot determine whether um reachable origem é compatível com um alegação; usar seu pesquisa handoff para verifique relevance e accuracy.
  • Ausente adjacent origem — um provável factual alegação contains Não URL em o mesmo sentence. Aging evidência — um detected year é em least three years behind o atual year. Broken citation / Verifique citation — compatível por o engine quando link-status evidência é fornecido, but ativo status é não avaliado por este página. Não constatação — Não correspondente pattern foi encontrado; isso é não um accuracy certificate.
Como funciona
O verificador conservatively looks para sentences com numbers, percentages, research language, ou forte comparative e absolute termos such como best, largest, always, e proves. Short fragments são ignored.
Limitações
  • O que counts como um provável alegação?
  • Não. Um clean resultado somente means o local heuristics fez não encontrar um de seus known patterns. Qualitative assertions, misleading framing, e irrelevant origens ainda exigir editorial revisão.
Perguntas frequentes
What contagens como a provável claim?
o verificador conservativemente looks para sentences com números, percentages, research idioma, ou forte comparative e absolute termos such como best, largest, sempre, e proves. curto fragments are ignordo.
faz o ferramenta verificar que a citação suporta a claim?
não. ele faz não buscar links ou interpret fonte material. ele apenas verifica whether a provável claim tem um adjacente URL e whether datdo evidência merits a novo human revisão.
Por que é a three-year-old statistic flaggdo?
Three anos é a revisão gatilho, não um expiração data. Some evidência remains valid para decades; volatile mercado, product, e comportamento statistics pode become stale much sooner.
pode a clean relatório provar um article é preciso?
não. A clean resultado apenas significa o local heuristics did não find um de seu conhecido padrões. Qualitative assertions, misleadndo framndo, e irrelevant sources ainda require editorial revisão.
faz o verificador detectar broken citação links?
Yes. depois o local claim passar, o página sends up para 25 citdo URLs para o bounddo status verificador. A faildo status pode flag a broken citação ou a DOI que precisa manual verificação; fonte relevance ainda requires human revisão.