The canvassing script gives me an answer I cannot honestly defend

I volunteered for a local campaign because I support its main goal and wanted to do something more useful than repost graphics. At orientation, we received a door-knocking script with short answers to common questions. One answer describes how the proposal will be funded. I read the source linked in our volunteer guide and could not get from the document to the certainty in the script.

The guide says the cost will be fully covered by savings elsewhere. The source says expected savings may offset costs, subject to assumptions that are not explained in the script. Maybe the campaign has additional analysis. Maybe I am misunderstanding the document. What I know is that I cannot stand on a stranger's porch and say "fully covered" as if I verified it.

I asked the volunteer lead and received a cheerful answer: keep conversations simple, do not get dragged into policy details, and direct complicated questions to the website. That is reasonable up to a point. Volunteers are not roaming analysts. But simplicity should not require converting a conditional claim into a guarantee.

I suggested different language: "The campaign expects identified savings to offset the cost; the estimate and assumptions are linked here." The lead said that sounded weak and would invite arguments. She may be right about persuasion. That does not make the stronger sentence true.

I can refuse to use that answer, stick to collecting voter priorities, or leave the canvass. I could also ask for the claim to be reviewed by whoever prepared the policy material. I do not want to derail a volunteer shift over one line, but the line concerns a predictable question and asks me to lend it my voice.

How should a volunteer handle a campaign claim that seems more certain than its cited source? Is it disloyal to qualify the script, or is that the minimum honesty required when speaking face to face?