Check the claim. Open the source.

Define the claim you actually need

A useful research question has a decision boundary. “Can this supplier meet our requirement for weekday support during a six-week rollout?” identifies what must be established. “Tell me about the supplier” invites a broad summary that may never resolve the operational question you care about.

Record the relevant date, geography, product, and account tier when they affect the answer. A policy about one plan is not evidence about another. Put supplied files in a Project and explain the criteria in its instructions. Ask the Session to identify missing inputs before turning a partial search into a firm recommendation.

Build a small register of consequential claims

Request one row for each fact that materially changes the decision. Include the claim, its source, a location within that source where available, and its status. Useful statuses include directly stated, calculated from stated values, interpreted, contradicted, and not found. These are labels you request in the output, not automatic product verification.

Prioritize primary sources for changeable product or policy details. A vendor’s documentation may establish its published terms; an independent account may help assess how those terms work in practice. Keep those purposes separate. Several articles repeating the same announcement do not provide several independent confirmations of its contents.

Check a fictional support-policy conclusion

Suppose fictional Cedar Studio is comparing two proposals. One proposal promises weekday email support, a marketing page says help is always available, and a pricing table lists an optional support package. The brief should not collapse those statements into “24/7 support is included.”

The evidence table exposes the question to resolve before a purchase. The ambiguous claim can stay in the brief as an open issue while the supported comparison proceeds. This lets the research remain useful without presenting an unsupported answer as a settled fact.

Verify the source at the point of use

Open the cited file in Preview or follow the source link. Read enough surrounding text to see exceptions, footnotes, and definitions. Confirm that a quotation or paraphrase refers to the right entity and period. For tables, check the column heading and unit as well as the number. “Up to 50 users” and “50 users included” describe different terms even though they share the same number.

When a linked page has changed or is unavailable, mark the claim as unverified until you have suitable evidence. Do not replace the missing source with a plausible URL or a snippet that lacks its qualifications. If you retain a permitted Project copy, identify when it was obtained and avoid implying that it stays synchronized.

Handle contradictions before polishing the summary

Ask the Agent to list conflicting statements side by side and explain which one the draft used. A newer date can matter, but it does not automatically outrank a signed proposal or a source about the exact product. Establish an appropriate precedence rule for the question rather than applying a universal newest-wins rule.

For derived figures, request the inputs and calculation. A percentage can be mathematically correct while using the wrong denominator or reporting period. Recalculate consequential numbers independently. Keep recommendations conditional when a missing fact would reverse the choice, and name that fact in the conclusion instead of burying it in a footnote.

Save a brief that another person can audit

Ask for a concise decision brief and the accompanying claim register as requested deliverables. Review the saved files themselves, including any table or later page, before using them. A reader should be able to move from the conclusion to the deciding claim and then to its original evidence.

Keep useful replies in Bookmarks and lasting findings in Archive → Wiki with source links. Record what needs rechecking before the next use. Research about current availability, price, or policy has a different useful lifetime from a historical explanation. Reusing the work should preserve that distinction rather than silently refreshing its date.

Try it with a small example.

Before you use the result.

• The decision scope and relevant date are explicit.
• Deciding claims point to sources that support their exact wording.
• Calculations show their inputs and denominator.
• Conflicting and missing evidence remains visible.
• The saved brief includes what needs rechecking later.