Separate a suggestion from observable evidence
An image-search result or AI answer may propose a town, school or landmark. Write down why it is a candidate rather than immediately editing the video caption. Similar walls, roads and skylines occur in many places. A plausible name becomes useful only when the visual evidence can be matched to that location.
Look for features that can be compared
Use distinctive building shapes, entrances, road layouts or fixed signs visible in the footage. Compare their arrangement, not just one common object. Full Fact’s published London-to-Java investigation describes an initial online location attribution and the need to match the site itself. At that stage, one account’s caption against another was not enough.
Check date as a separate dimension
Even a convincing place match does not establish when the video was recorded. Construction, shopfronts and other features may help set bounds, but those observations need dated evidence of their own. Record what can be supported and what remains open. A correct location can still accompany a false claim about a current protest or incident.
Keep the final wording tied to the evidence
If only a candidate place has been found, say that the location remains unverified. If multiple distinctive features establish a match, explain those features and retain the supporting pages. Do not describe the AI as a witness or an authority that confirmed the event. Its useful contribution may be suggesting where to look; the verification rests on the evidence you can show.
Questions, answered
Does a plausible AI location answer prove where a clip was filmed?
No. Independently match the site.
Does confirming a location also confirm the date?
No. Date requires separate evidence.