P4-S6 cross-subject: the hallucination hunt — a repeatable routine for checking more than one source

• StageP4-S6
• SubjectCross-curricular
• Learning strandthe fundamental operating principles of AI / human-AI communication and collaboration / reflection on the application of AI
• Official documentsBlueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools · AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools (Examples of Application Scenarios) · Guide to Using AI in Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools · EDB Circular No. 156/2026 · EDB Circular No. 107/2026
• Session timeAbout 20 minutes to prepare the first time (print the tracking sheet, choose one or two sentences that can be checked today); a 60-minute lesson

A confident sentence is not evidence. Four steps, six columns, four forms: cut one claim out of an answer, open the sources, compare independent sources, then judge it and rewrite it into a sentence you are willing to sign.

• AudienceTeachers Students
• ThemeResponsible AI use

• EquipmentThe one-page six-column tracking sheet (prints on its own); one or two sentences you have chosen that can be checked today; a device with internet access, or two sources downloaded in advance
• Version1.0
• Last updated2026-11-04

A confident sentence is not evidence. Four steps, six columns, four forms: cut one sentence, open the sources, compare them, then judge the claim and rewrite it into a sentence you are willing to sign.

What this solves

An AI tool is most convincing exactly when it writes most confidently: a complete-looking answer, a few source names that look real, and a figure with one decimal place in the middle. The problem is not that the tool is “unreliable”. It is that a confident sentence is not evidence — it may be right, or it may only read as if it were. This page does not teach pupils to distrust everything. It teaches one routine they can repeat: trace a sentence back to its sources, and only then decide whether to use it.

That is also why asking again is not checking. Put the same prompt in three times and you get three differently worded answers saying much the same thing, which shows the tool is consistent, not that it is correct. Holding those three answers up against each other still leaves you with one source.

The official documents ask for multi-source checking and critical discernment, and warn against outsourcing thinking; they prescribe no checking table and no number of sources. The four steps, six columns and four forms here are one repeatable routine this resource has put together. They are a suggestion, not a requirement.

This page serves teaching and learning, not a test of information literacy. Assessment does not turn on whether pupils can name the four forms; it turns on column six, the sentence they hand in, and whether that sentence is genuinely more signable than the original. A teacher can see this in column three (was the source actually opened) and in column six (is the rewrite more careful), and classroom observation shows whether a group stopped to open a link at step two. Feedback names one thing to change, so that the next hunt really happens. The step is also values work: critical discernment is refusing to treat a confident sentence as a fact; responsibility is checking before the sentence reaches a classmate or a teacher; and using AI when it fits means not turning this into a formality where checking adds nothing.

Three boundaries, please read them together. First, the name “tracking sheet”, the six columns and the order of the four steps are a suggestion from this resource, not an Education Bureau requirement. Second, this page teaches one repeatable in-school practice; it does not evaluate any tool or supplier, and it does not argue that pupils should therefore stop using AI. The conclusion is one line throughout: until it has been checked, do not use it as a fact. Third, every example here is fictional and printed to show the format only. The page supplies no ready-made questions, no fake sources and no fake web addresses; the teacher prepares one or two sentences that can be checked on the day.

Learning objectives

By the end of the lesson, pupils will be able to:

1. Copy one sentence containing a single claim out of an answer.
2. Ask the tool for its sources, open them, and record the domain, the title and the posting date.
3. Decide whether the sources they hold are independent of one another, and say which of them is a first-hand official source.
4. Choose one of the four judgements, and rewrite the original sentence into one they are willing to sign.

How to use it

The order of the four steps is the order of the columns. One page, six columns, prints on its own; the count and the order are fixed, with nothing added and no sub-items.

Step 1 — cut one sentence. Copy out of the answer one sentence that carries a single claim. A sentence carrying two claims (for example, “most pupils in a certain city use these tools daily and their results have fallen as a result”) becomes two rows, hunted separately. Copy it word for word: rewrite it and you are no longer checking what the tool said, only your own version of it.

Step 2 — find the sources. Ask the tool for its sources first, then open every one of them and write three things in column three: the domain, the title, the posting date. A source you cannot open is not a source; a page you can open that does not say that sentence leaves it unchecked. This line is printed on the sheet itself: the link opens but the page does not say it = not verified.

Step 3 — weigh more than one independent source. Three independent sources, at least one of them first-hand and official. Sources that quote the same original text count as one: three reports all relaying the same press release are one source, not three. A school may adjust this to two, decided by the teacher before the lesson. That is a suggestion from this resource, not an Education Bureau requirement, and neither the page nor the sheet may present it as an official rule.

Step 4 — judge, then rewrite. Pick one of four: verified, partly correct, cannot be verified, wrong. Then rewrite the original sentence into one you can sign — keep the part you could check, drop the part you could not, add no new figures, and do not replace checking with “it is said”.

The six-column tracking sheet (column names and order fixed)

One example row (entirely fictional, printed to show the format)

The four forms of hallucination (the form and how to spot it, with no fake citation to copy)

One 60-minute lesson, four parts

The offline version. Where the room has no internet, the teacher downloads two sources in advance (one first-hand official, one second-hand) and step two becomes checking the domain, the title and the posting date on paper. Step three uses two sources, as this page already allows at school level. The four steps and the six columns do not change.

Interfaces with other resources in the library (listed only; none of their functions is redone here). The data-minimisation checklist covers what to strip before anything is typed in; this page covers what happens after an answer comes back. The academic-honesty declaration covers how a pupil accounts for AI use in a piece of work; this page supplies the sentence to sign. The three-step check before sharing a screenshot covers forwarding an image; this page covers a written claim and its sources. The error analysis covers how a pupil found out the tool was wrong; this page supplies the routine that follows the discovery. The source-trail map covers the relationship between a claim, its source and how it was checked; the six columns here are its sentence-by-sentence version. Nothing in those resources changes wording, columns or count because of this page.

Answer key and marking notes

The four steps: what right looks like, and the usual wrong answer

Telling the four judgements apart

Cannot be verified is not the same as wrong. A claim may be true or false and simply not checkable today. Calling it wrong takes contrary evidence; without that evidence, record “cannot be verified” and do not use it as a fact. Say this out loud during peer review, because merging the two judgements is the commonest slip.

What a good rewritten sentence looks like

• One sentence, not a paragraph.
• It keeps the part that could be checked and drops the part that could not.
• It adds no new figure, year or organisation name.
• It does not replace checking with “it is said”, “some people think” or “it is generally believed” - that hands the judgement back to somebody with no name.
• It can be signed: you are willing to put your name after it.

Common errors

• Treating repeated asking as several sources. The same prompt three times is still one source.
• Treating the home page as the source. Open the page that carries the sentence; a home page that opens proves nothing about its content.
• Writing “cannot be verified” as “wrong”. The two need different evidence, and the slip teaches pupils to reach for a heavier word instead of checking.
• Quietly loosening the claim on the rewrite. The original says 62%; the rewrite says “more than half”; the figure is still unsourced.
• Hunting only the most suspicious sentence. The suspicious one usually yields a finding; the one that slips through is the one that sounded most reasonable.

What counts as meeting the standard here: all six columns filled (column three may read “could not open”), one of the four judgements in column five, and one signable sentence in column six. The sheet is a record of an operation, not something marked with a score; peer review reads columns three and six only.

Files

The hallucination hunt tracking sheet (Word document, editable)

Six pages, each usable on its own: the five facts at the top; the four-step routine (one page); the six-column tracking sheet (one page, prints on its own, with one fictional example row and three blank rows); the four forms of hallucination (one page); the 60-minute lesson in four parts and the offline version (one page); the interfaces and a proofreading list (one page). Schools may reuse and adapt it.

Official documents

Every resource in this library is written to the AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools and falls within the policy scope of the Blueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools.

This resource maps to:

• Blueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools (three-fold leaflet, p.2): its four principles are technology for good, nurturing the whole person, equity and access, and forward-looking innovation; this page puts the checking routine under nurturing the whole person - checking exists so that pupils can stand behind their own work, not so that a tool can be ruled out.
• AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools (Examples of Application Scenarios) (p.13): its junior secondary mathematics example on data and statistics asks pupils to press the AI for its data sources and to check its output against official statistics; this page turns that requirement into four steps a pupil can complete sentence by sentence.
• Guide to Using AI in Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools (p.2-4): the teacher’s professional gatekeeping, compliance with the law and safe learning, and the requirement to guide pupils towards critical discernment and against outsourcing their thinking; column six - the sentence the pupil rewrites themselves - is the cell that keeps the whole judgement from being handed over.
• EDB Circular No. 156/2026 (Appendix 1, section 3): upholding professional gatekeeping; the teacher chooses the sentence and the number of sources on this page, and no ready-made question is supplied.
• EDB Circular No. 107/2026 (paragraph 4): bringing digital education into the school development plan and/or the annual school plan; this page can serve as one lesson of that work.

Learning strands: the fundamental operating principles of AI / human-AI communication and collaboration / reflection on the application of AI

Official documents page: https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/applicable-to-primary-secondary/it-in-edu/debp.html

This page is an independent Beets teaching resource, not an official EDB document. The name “tracking sheet”, the six columns and the order of the four steps are a suggestion from this resource, not an Education Bureau requirement; what the Bureau’s documents ask for is multi-source checking and critical discernment, with a warning against outsourcing thinking, and they prescribe neither a checking table nor a number of sources. This page teaches one repeatable in-school practice; it evaluates no tool or supplier and does not argue that pupils should therefore stop using AI. Every example is fictional, and the page supplies no ready-made question, fake source or fake web address. The conclusion is always the same: until it has been checked, do not use it as a fact.

Feedback

If you have any comments or questions about this resource, or an idea for the next one, please tell us on the feedback page.