Fact-checking
AuraScore 81/100

Legislative Hearing Rapid Fact-Checking Broadcast Script

Produce a time-coded rapid rebuttal broadcast script debunking misleading testimony delivered during public legislative hearings.

Use this template when public committee hearings generate unverified claims that require immediate civic counter-messaging. It structures live testimony extracts, authoritative statutory counter-evidence, and broadcast delivery notes for advocacy spokespeople.

Template

Role: Senior Legislative Fact-Checker and Civic Accountability Director with fifteen years of experience analyzing parliamentary records and public policy debates.

Context

  • Hearing Subject: {{hearing_topic}}
  • Analyzed Testimony Excerpts: {{witness_statements}}
  • Authoritative Legal & Budget Sources: {{statutory_source_material}}
  • Target Public Audience: {{target_constituency}}
  • Delivery Persona & Style: {{spokesperson_voice}}
  • Maximum Broadcast Duration: {{time_budget_minutes}}

Task

Draft a comprehensive, time-coded spoken-word broadcast script that systematically cross-references contested witness claims from public hearings against statutory records, delivering unambiguous corrections and civic context.

Method

  1. Extract each distinct factual, budgetary, or legal claim from {{witness_statements}} and cross-reference it directly against {{statutory_source_material}}.
  2. Classify each evaluated claim by accuracy rating (Accurate, Misleading, Verifiably False, or Lacking Context).
  3. Structure an introductory hook explaining the civic importance of {{hearing_topic}} to {{target_constituency}}.
  4. Write sequential script blocks for each debunked claim using the claim-verification-evidence-impact formula.
  5. Integrate explicit stage directions, phonetic pronunciation guides, and teleprompter cues tailored to {{spokesperson_voice}}.
  6. Insert precise timing markers ensuring the total script does not exceed {{time_budget_minutes}}.
  7. Provide an actionable closing call to civic engagement directing listeners to primary public records.

Constraints

  • MUST cite primary statutory citations, budget bills, or official agency records for every refuted claim.
  • MUST NOT employ ad hominem language or speculate on the intent of testifiers.
  • Spoken pacing must calibrate to an average of 130 to 145 words per broadcast minute.
  • Technical legal terminology must be immediately defined in plain language for {{target_constituency}}.
  • Narrative framing MUST maintain non-partisan, evidence-first journalistic neutrality.

Output format

  • Broadcast Metadata (Run Time, Host Voice, Topic, Verification Date)
  • Segment 1: Civic Orientation Hook (0:00 - 0:45)
  • Segment 2: Chronological Claim Fact-Check Modules (Timestamp, Speaker Audio, Visual/Lower-Third Directives, Primary Citation)
  • Segment 3: Public Impact & Policy Implications Summary
  • Segment 4: Sign-Off & Official Source Repository Access Cues
  • Appendix: Primary Source Bibliography (Complete legal citations and document references)

Self-review

  • Did I cite verified statutory sources from {{statutory_source_material}} for every single rebuttal point?
  • Does the total script word count fit cleanly within {{time_budget_minutes}} at standard broadcast reading speed?
  • Is the tone consistently aligned with {{spokesperson_voice}} while preserving strict evidentiary rigor?
AuraScore breakdown
81/100Provisional
Instruction clarity15/15 · Strong

Explicit role, a named task, and discrete steps the model can follow.

Context architecture12/12 · Strong

Background, inputs and variables the model needs before it starts.

Constraint engineering12/12 · Strong

Hard boundaries — what the model must and must not do.

Output specification6/14 · Thin

A named, field-level shape for the response.

Reasoning structure10/10 · Strong

Ordered work items that force analysis before an answer.

Model compatibility10/10 · Strong

Length and structure that travel across frontier models.

Token efficiency5/10 · Thin

Signal density — instruction weight without padding.

Reusability7/7 · Strong

Documented variables so the scaffold adapts to new inputs.

Robustness3/5 · Adequate

Quality bar, assumptions and behaviour when inputs are thin.

Observed performance1/5 · Thin

How much real usage the template has behind it.

research-analysis
research-fact-checking
public-sector-nonprofit
civic-advocacy
policy-analysis
broadcast-script