Is factually true and not true

1. What “factually true” means in standard dictionaries

Major dictionary entries treat “factually” and “factual” as modifiers tied to facts: something factual “uses or consists of facts” and “true” is “based on facts rather than being invented or imagined” (Cambridge; Collins; Merriam‑Webster) ^{[1] [2] [3]}. These entries establish the baseline: “factually true” is language indicating correspondence to objective facts.

2. Dictionaries flag real‑world nuance: truth ≠ completeness

Collins explicitly observes that even statements that are “factually true” can still mislead if they are presented evasively or omit important context—the technical point that truthfulness and honesty are not identical ^{[4] [6]}. In practice, a single true datum can create a false impression when left unconnected to relevant facts.

3. Practical tension: accurate claims vs. misleading framing

Examples in dictionary citations show this tension in media and legal settings: a factually accurate sentence may be “misleading or evasive” enough to affect grand jury testimony or public understanding (Collins) ^[4]. Journalistic and legal practice therefore evaluates not only atomic truth but the communicative effect—how the fact is framed and whether essential context is omitted ^[4].

4. Measurement problems when assessing statements (especially by AI)

Research into AI factuality stresses the difficulty of reliably labeling free‑form outputs as true or false. Automated verifiers can fall short: the technical literature reports that state‑of‑the‑art systems still have modest reliability (e.g., F1 scores around 0.6 in some checks), and defining a gold standard for open‑ended outputs is hard (arXiv) ^[5]. Thus, whether an AI answer is “factually true” can depend on imperfect verification tools.

5. Examples that illustrate the gap between truth and relevance

The arXiv paper gives an instructive example: an answer labeled irrelevant by an evaluator could nonetheless be factually true (e.g., a cultural claim about New Zealand and rugby) ^[5]. This shows two separate axes: factual accuracy and relevance/appropriateness to the question—both matter to whether a statement serves truthful communication ^[5].

6. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas in usage

Dictionaries are neutral definers (Cambridge, Collins, Merriam‑Webster), but Collins includes examples from legal and media contexts that carry implicit critiques of how “factually true” can be used rhetorically to defend misleading claims ^{[4] [6]}. Linguistic resources like Urban Dictionary highlight conversational uses where “factually” becomes a rhetorical shield—an implicit agenda to end disputes rather than clarify facts ^[7]. Both perspectives show that labeling something “factually true” can be persuasive, not purely descriptive.

7. What current reporting does not cover

Available sources do not mention a formal, universally accepted operational test that declares when a compound or framed statement becomes “misleading despite being factually true.” Nor do the provided sources offer legal thresholds that universally convert factual truth plus omission into fraud or perjury—those topics are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).

8. Takeaway for readers and communicators

If you seek to assert or evaluate that a claim is “factually true,” cite the underlying facts and connect them to context so the claim cannot be reasonably interpreted as evasive ^{[1] [2] [3]}. When evaluating AI or automated checks, treat their labels with caution because verification systems are imperfect and may conflate relevance with truth ^[5].