Truthscope, by Firn, audits what ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini say about your organization — and shows you what they get wrong and how to fix it.
| Category | ChatGPT | Gemini | Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child Care Subsidy | 75% | 25% | 50% |
| Noise | 60% | 40% | 50% |
| Snow Removal | 43% | 14% | 29% |
| On-Street Parking | 25% | 25% | 25% |
| Seniors Health | 20% | 0% | 10% |
| Evictions | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Independent audit using publicly available data. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the City of Toronto.
When someone asks AI about your fees, your deadlines, or your eligibility rules, it answers confidently, even when it's wrong. And you have no visibility into what it's telling them. Truthscope changes that.
Every day, AI answers questions about your organization. You have no way to track what it's saying.
We'll audit responses against your ground truth and show you which issues carry the highest risk — and what to fix first.
Book an Intro CallWe build a ground truth from your institution's own published information, including specific fees, deadlines, eligibility rules, and processes. Every AI response is scored against this ground truth. It's binary. The answer is either accurate or it isn't.
ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. These are the three platforms that handle the majority of AI-generated search queries. More models are being added.
A comprehensive accuracy report scored by topic, by model, and by severity, with a risk heatmap and priority action items for the highest-consequence errors. You can drill down question by question to see exactly what each AI platform said and how it compares to your published information. With ongoing monthly monitoring, each audit tracks how AI accuracy shifts over time, detecting drift when models update and catching new errors when your policies change.
A single question tells you about a single answer. Truthscope tests systematically across dozens of questions, across every major model, scored against your published information, repeated monthly. You get a complete and ongoing picture of your institution's AI exposure, not a one-time spot-check.
AI models are improving at general reasoning, but institutional accuracy is a different problem. Your information lives across dozens of web pages, dense PDFs, and policy documents that models struggle to parse correctly. Improvements in reasoning don't automatically translate to accuracy on your specific fees, deadlines, and eligibility rules. And as AI adoption grows, the impact of every error multiplies. More people are making real decisions based on what AI says about your institution, with no way for you to track it. For institutions where accuracy has real consequences, that distinction matters.