Research you can check

Learn 14 planned minutes

Start with a question, not an answer to defend

Write the issue, material facts, jurisdiction and relevant date. Distinguish a legal rule, professional guidance, a contractual term and the organisation's own policy. They can all matter, but one does not automatically replace another. A Kenyan statutory question should not be answered solely from an English regulator's warning or a US ethics opinion.

AI can help break an issue into questions, suggest search terms and identify potential sources. That is discovery. Verification means opening and examining the source, checking its identity and scope, and deciding whether it supports your exact proposition. Search snippets and model-generated citations are starting points, not completed authority checks.

Check more than whether a case exists

For legislation, examine the actual provision, definitions, extent, version, commencement and relevant amendments. For a judgment, identify the court, date, procedural context, issue and passages supporting the proposition; later treatment may also matter. For guidance, record who issued it, who it addresses, when and with what legal status.

A source can be genuine but quoted incorrectly, applied to the wrong facts, superseded or given a broader meaning than it bears. A citation service or specialist database may be needed for later-treatment checking. If you lack that access, say so. Do not ask another chatbot to certify the first chatbot's authorities.

Separate publication date, the version of the law and the date you accessed it. For example, the Kenya Law text used as an optional reading is a version dated 31 December 2022; opening it in September 2026 does not itself establish that every related regulation or later decision has been checked. KEDPA

Write a verification record

Keep the proposition, jurisdiction, relevant date, source title, precise location, version/publication date, access date, supported wording or concise paraphrase, limits and remaining checks. Use a small, lawful quotation only where needed; a link to a full copyrighted text is not a licence to reproduce it.

If a source is blocked, record the failed access and seek an authorised copy or assistance. Do not invent a pinpoint, quote or “checked” status. A source-access gap may mean the legal conclusion must remain open. Tool fluency includes being able to say that clearly.

For the course, there is no client opinion to deliver. You may complete the method-practice route by identifying an access gap and explaining the right next step. That record must not be described as actual or observed primary-source verification. Keep three labels separate: method practice; self-reported actual inspection; and actual inspection reviewed by a named person. Only the last can be recorded as observed source verification, with the reviewer, date and evidence identified.

Worked example

Candidate claim: “The SRA allows any paid AI account to receive confidential client information.” The real SRA warning is dated 17 August 2026.

A careful reader checks the warning's concerns and confidentiality discussion. It warns that paid as well as free tools may lack the safeguards needed for the information. The claim therefore overstates what the source supports. A sound record is narrower: the warning calls for appropriate safeguards and consideration of confidentiality in SRA-regulated work; payment alone is not the assessment. This does not decide a Kenyan firm's legal obligations or approve any product. SRA

Notice that finding the correct document did not finish the task. The main error was the proposition attached to it.

Practise 20 planned minutes

Guided practice

Spend about five minutes on the SRA candidate claim, using the actual warning if available or S05 with an explicit simulation label. Explain why it cannot by itself answer a Kenyan data-protection question. Use the remaining practice time for A05-S1: a bounded statutory inspection, or its method-only fallback. The statutory exercise is a different proposition, not repetition of the model SRA answer.

Feedback — compare after your attempt

Reject both unsupported payment-based approval and an invented “Training Authority X”. The first is a misuse of a real source; the second lacks a real authority. An honest access-gap record is better than claiming verification from this lesson's explanation. The course author's source check is not the learner's own observed check. A05-S1 distinguishes a purpose-related data-minimisation provision from an invented universal 30-day retention limit; record what you personally inspected before looking at the feedback.

Practice assignment

Complete A05 using A05-S1's two short propositions and exact statutory locators, or document a source-access gap and method-only fallback. Give the URL or authorised-copy identifier, version, actual access date, what you inspected, what is supported and at least one remaining scope/current-law question. Keep the explanation within 200 words; observation metadata is additional short fields. To record observed source verification, obtain a named review of one completed actual inspection and its evidence. No review means a self-reported record, not an observed outcome. This exercise authorises no actual upload.

Participation

Ask a colleague, “What could make my proposition wrong even if this source is real?” Solo alternative: answer for a wrong jurisdiction and an outdated version.

Check 6 planned minutes

Two formative checks. Choose an answer, then check it or open the comparison. Retry freely; this is not an award or an observed-skill record.

Source study and completion check

The A05-S1 inspection or fallback above is the source-study work; it is not an additional assignment. KEDPA ABA remains an unreviewed US reading lead only, with the access limitation in the register. Complete AI05's two checks.

Before moving on, compare your artifact with the module feedback, correct material errors and keep its actual route label. This page does not record or certify completion.