Separate Facts, Interpretation, and Opinion in AI Writing

Sign-ups rise after a headline changes. Advertising also increases that week. A hypothetical draft concludes, “The headline worked, so every campaign should use it.” That sentence merges an observation, a causal explanation and a recommendation. Each needs a different kind of support.

Separate the jobs and the missing evidence becomes easier to see. Sign-ups rose after two changes. The headline may have contributed. Reusing it everywhere is a further decision that the observation alone does not justify.

Attribute the observation

An observation needs a source and scope. Who recorded the sign-ups, over which period, using what definition? The fixture does not provide those details, so an article based on it should describe it as a hypothetical situation rather than imply a measured Coryntas campaign result.

In an actual report, keep the measurement window and material conditions with the number. A fact without its scope can become misleading even when the number itself is copied correctly.

Explain the inference

An interpretation proposes a relationship. If a headline changed what visitors understood, that could explain some difference in sign-ups. Increased advertising supplies another possible explanation. Both remain hypotheses until evidence separates their effects.

The Strengthen Your Argument playbook asks for this link between claim and evidence. It may produce a narrower conclusion rather than a more persuasive version of the original. That is useful when the original argument depends on an inference its sources cannot support.

Own the recommendation

A recommendation can be reasonable without pretending to be a measured fact. “Test the headline while holding advertising conditions steady” is a proposed next step. The writer should explain the reason and acknowledge practical limits, such as a changing audience or insufficient traffic for a useful comparison.

You can keep the distinctions visible without labelling every sentence:

Sign-ups rose after the headline changed, during a week when advertising also increased. The observation does not isolate the headline’s effect. A comparison with steadier advertising and audience conditions would help test that explanation.

Carry the distinctions into the prompt

Supply observations, interpretations and desired recommendations separately when briefing AI. Ask it to preserve attribution and mark unsupported transitions. Use Write with Sources when the draft needs claim-level links.

Then review the verbs. “Reported,” “suggests,” “caused” and “should” make different commitments. Changing one during a style edit can alter the argument more than replacing a paragraph of adjectives. The meaning-preservation guide shows how to check that second pass.