Check your company's visibility in AI
Free, no credit card required.
An AI answer links to three articles. It looks convincing until you notice that all three repeat the same interview. Before treating them as independent confirmation, check where the text came from. Here is a practical way to record relationships, including cases with incomplete evidence.
Cited URLs do not necessarily represent independent findings
Syndication distributes a publication across additional sites. An article may be republished with permission, distributed through a publisher network or based on a shared announcement. Three different domains do not establish that three editorial teams independently checked the same information.
To identify shared origins, compare the publications themselves, not just site names. The result should be a documented relationship: confirmed copy, probable common source, independent contribution or unresolved origin. Keep the citation count recorded by the monitoring tool unchanged.
Preserve the answer and complete URLs first
Record the question, language, AI system, date and complete answer with its cited URLs. Open each article and check which passage supports the claim being examined. A link in the answer does not show that the entire publication supports every sentence.
For each article, record title, author or publisher, visible publication date, update date, stated source and your own reading date. Mark inaccessible pages as unavailable. Do not assign an origin based on a search-result snippet.
Look for shared traces in the text
Compare distinctive passages: unusual argument order, an identical quotation, the same error, examples or image captions. One matching generic sentence is weak evidence. Several uncommon elements in the same order are more useful, but the evidence still needs describing.
| Relationship assessment | Supporting evidence |
|---|---|
| Confirmed reprint | An explicit reprint notice and source link can confirm a relationship. |
| Possible shared origin | Identical text without a notice warrants checking common origins. |
| Original contribution | Shared data with an original interview or analysis may represent a separate contribution. |
| Unresolved | Unavailable text or conflicting information should remain unresolved. |
Do not confuse shared information origins with copyright infringement. This procedure describes source relationships; it does not determine whether publication was lawful.
Establish origin and original contribution
The earliest visible date is a clue, not proof of authorship. Dates can reflect site migration or a later update. Clear attribution to an author, originating publication, agency or original material, consistent with the articles, is stronger evidence.
The provenance model W3C PROV-O separates responsibility for a material from derivation from earlier material. In your review sheet, record the author or publisher and the original text separately. Those relationships still require checking the content.
Hypothetical example: AI cites sites A, B and C. A publishes an interview. B names A as its source and repeats the text. C cites that interview but adds its own conversation with another expert. Record one confirmed reprint and C's separate contribution. Do not automatically reduce the entire set to one opinion.
Hypothetical example: A publishes an interview, B reprints it, C adds its own interview. Assess shared material and new contributions separately.
Without clear evidence, label the relationship “probable common origin” and explain why. Leave room to revise the assessment when full text becomes available.
Separate citations from interpretation
Retain original URLs and citation counts in the report. Add a separate “publication family” column containing the relationship and evidence. This is an editorial interpretation of provenance, not a new definition of a Semly metric.
Use the same labelling rules when comparing periods and check missing pages. More cited domains may mean wider distribution of the same material or genuinely new independent findings. Text analysis distinguishes these situations.
Use the analysis to understand the answer
If an answer relies on several copies of one announcement, seek material that independently supports its claims. If a new contribution appears, identify the additional evidence it supplies. The goal is better understanding of an answer's foundations, rather than removing valid citations from a report.
Semly helps locate sources used in AI answers; source relationships are assessed from the pages themselves.
Check before implementation
- The full answer and cited URLs are retained.
- Full publications were read, beyond search snippets.
- Each relationship has evidence or an uncertainty label.
- Original contributions and citation counts stay separate.
Related guide: What sources does Perplexity use when recommending companies and tools?
Share:
