**Finding 1 — "grew 47.3% in 2024": BLOCK (fabricated-fact pattern).** An over-precise growth figure with no named source is the classic confabulation signature; real market data arrives attributed to a research firm. Verify externally: whether any analyst report actually states this figure. Approach: search "project management software market size 2024" restricted to named firms (Gartner, IDC, Statista); if no attributable source surfaces, cut the number or replace it with a sourced range. **Finding 2 — "2023 Stanford study led by Dr. Amanda Chen ... 31% faster": BLOCK (citation hallucination pattern).** Named institution + named researcher + precise effect size, with no paper title or link, is the highest-risk citation shape a model produces. Verify: that the study exists and says this. Approach: Google Scholar search on author plus topic; search the exact effect-size claim. If the paper cannot be located, delete the sentence entirely — do not soften it to "a study found." **Finding 3 — "Asana, Monday.com and ClickUp all launched AI assistants in 2023": WARN (plausible-but-unverified).** Directionally plausible; the single shared year across three vendors is the fragile part. Verify: each vendor's launch date. Approach: the vendors' own press or changelog pages; correct per vendor or reframe as "since 2023." **Finding 4 — "analysts widely expect consolidation by 2026": WARN (confident-but-wrong pattern).** "Analysts widely expect" manufactures a consensus without naming anyone, and attaches a date to it. Verify: at least one named, citable analyst making this call. Approach: if none exists, rewrite as your own stated view and own it. **No OK findings.** The two BLOCK items are load-bearing: if the 47.3% figure and the Stanford study do not survive verification, the slide's narrative has no evidence under it.