How to Prevent AI Hallucinations in Support
You prevent AI hallucinations in customer support with a layered defense: ground every answer in retrieved source content, compute business logic in code rather than in the language model, run a separate supervisor check before any answer ships, and make refusing to guess a rewarded outcome. No single guardrail is enough, because most support hallucinations are unfaithfulness to retrieved context, not random invention, so they slip past any one filter.
The layered guardrails
- Ground or refuse: answer only from retrieved content or live system data; if there is no source, escalate.
- Business logic in code: refund amounts, return windows, and eligibility computed deterministically, never authored by the model.
- Supervisor verification: a separate check confirms the answer before it is sent.
- Refuse to guess: "I do not know, let me get a human" is a success, not a failure.
Why grounding alone is not enough
Even with retrieval, a model can be unfaithful to the source it was given, stating something the article does not actually support. The Cursor case, where a support bot invented a nonexistent device policy and drove real cancellations, is a grounded-context failure, not pure fabrication. That is why claim-level grounding checks and a supervisor pass sit on top of retrieval rather than replacing it.
How Resolve makes hallucination structurally unlikely
Reva answers only from grounded knowledge base content and escalates with a decision card when the source material does not cover a question. The confidence dial gates auto-sends so a shaky answer becomes a human decision, business logic is computed in code, and reopen rate is monitored as the audit trail on anything that slips through. The result is aggressive automation without confident wrongness.