When sources disagree, the applicant should isolate the exact claim in conflict and verify it against a reliable source rather than choose the answer that sounds more confident. For an institution-specific requirement, EducationUSA advises checking the specific requirements on that institution’s international admissions website. If the conflict remains unresolved, the requirement should be marked as unconfirmed rather than filled with a guess.
What Does Verification Require?
Verification should be claim by claim, not a general impression that one source appears authoritative. The OpenAI Help Center recommends that people “verify important information from reliable sources.” That is a checking principle, not evidence that either side of a particular disagreement is correct.
The applicant can record the conflict in a simple evidence log:
| Field | What to Record |
|---|---|
| Disputed claim | The exact requirement or statement that differs |
| Source wording | The relevant wording rather than a paraphrase |
| Scope | The conditions under each source makes its statement |
| Institutional check | What the institution’s international admissions website says about the same point |
| Status | Confirmed, still conflicting, or not addressed |
This prevents an unresolved issue from being mistaken for an established requirement.
Which Source Should Be Checked First?
For an admissions requirement, the first institutional source to consult is the relevant institution’s international admissions website, following EducationUSA’s advice. More general guidance can help identify what needs checking, but it does not replace institution-specific information.
A polished answer, repeated claim, or apparently recent wording is not verification by itself. The applicant should compare the exact statements, their scope, and what each source actually supports. If an AI-generated summary conflicts with an institutional page, the summary should remain an item to check—not become the final evidence.
What If the Institutional Information Still Conflicts?
The cited guidance does not provide a universal tie-breaker for contradictory statements. The applicant should not merge incompatible claims or select one merely because it is more convenient. Both statements should remain attached to the disputed issue while direct confirmation is sought from the relevant institution.
Until the conflict is resolved, no fee, deadline, eligibility condition, program length, or other requirement should be presented as established merely because one of the conflicting sources contains it. If the available material does not answer the point, that limitation should be stated plainly.
What Must the Applicant Still Confirm?
Before making a final choice, the applicant must confirm:
- What exact requirement is in dispute.
- Which source directly addresses that requirement.
- Whether the source applies to the applicant’s specific situation.
- Whether any conflict remains after the institutional check.
- Which unresolved points still require direct confirmation.
Sources and final decisions remain with the applicant. Organising evidence can make the disagreement easier to manage, but it does not remove the responsibility for checking the underlying sources and making the final decision.