[simonw]

I like this a lot. I've been telling people for a while that asking for direct quotations in LLM output - which you can then "fact-check" by confirming them against the source document - is a useful trick. But that still depends on people actually doing that check, which most people won't do.

I'd thought about experimenting with automatically validating that the quoted text does indeed 100% match the original source, but should even a tweak to punctuation count as a failure there?

The proposed deterministic quoting mechanism feels like a much simpler and more reliable way to achieve the same effect.