The short answer
Yes, as a draft you verify. The useful part is a traceable checklist with explicit gaps, not a confident-looking summary. Public documentation still needs a clear scope and a human check.
Three useful checks
- Choose the source and question. Open the official page yourself and confirm it covers the product and task you mean. Record its URL and the date you checked it. Use public material appropriate for your approved AI tool; do not add private logs, customer details or credentials to make the prompt more specific.
- Specify a reviewable output. Ask for a short checklist tied to that source, with prerequisites, observations, stop conditions and unanswered questions kept separate. Useful prompt: “Using this public guide, draft a checklist for understanding the process. For each item, identify the supporting section. Mark anything the source does not establish. Do not invent steps.” This is a Winhoven example, not a Microsoft template.
- Check every item against the page. Follow the cited section and confirm it supports the claim. Remove invented requirements, restore missing caveats, and remove steps outside the agreed task. If the tool cannot read the source, do not accept a polished answer as evidence that it did. Revise the request or work directly from the documentation.
What this does not prove
A well-formed checklist does not prove it is complete, current for your environment or approved for execution. AI availability and data handling depend on your chosen product and account. Keep any deployment decision separate.