sor-source-research

name	sor - Source Research
description	Systematic procedure for finding, evaluating, and synthesizing information from primary and secondary sources.
output	{"format":"prose"}

Source Research

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Overview

Structured research procedure that goes beyond searching to systematic source identification, evaluation, and synthesis. Prioritizes primary sources, evaluates credibility rigorously, and produces synthesized findings with explicit confidence levels.

Steps

Step 1: Define Research Scope

1. State the research question precisely
2. What would count as an answer?
3. What types of sources are relevant?
   • Primary (original data, direct observation, first-hand accounts)
   • Secondary (analysis of primary sources, reviews, commentary)
   • Tertiary (encyclopedias, textbooks, summaries)
4. Depth needed: survey overview / comprehensive / exhaustive
5. Recency requirements: current only / historical context needed

Step 2: Identify Source Channels

Map where relevant sources live:

• Academic: journals, databases, preprints, dissertations
• Government: data portals, reports, regulatory filings
• Industry: white papers, conference proceedings, trade publications
• Media: news archives, investigative reporting
• Expert: books, interviews, talks, blogs by domain experts
• Community: forums, practitioner discussions, case studies
• Primary data: datasets, experiments, observations

Step 3: Execute Systematic Search

1. Start with most authoritative sources
2. For each channel: search with 3+ query variations
3. Follow citation chains (references in good sources lead to more good sources)
4. Track what you searched and what you found (prevents re-searching)
5. Stop condition: new searches return sources you've already found

Step 4: Evaluate Each Source

→ INVOKE: /src [source] for deep evaluation if critical

Quick evaluation:

1. Authority: Who created this? What's their expertise?
2. Evidence: What supports the claims? Data? Logic? Authority?
3. Bias: What perspective is this from? What might they omit?
4. Recency: Is this current enough for the question?
5. Corroboration: Do independent sources agree?

Assign: A (authoritative) / B (credible) / C (use with caution) / D (unreliable)

Step 5: Extract and Organize Findings

For each source:

1. Key claims or data points
2. Evidence supporting each claim
3. How it relates to the research question
4. How it relates to other sources (agreement, disagreement, complementary)

Step 6: Synthesize

1. What do the sources collectively establish?
2. Where is there consensus?
3. Where is there disagreement? Can it be resolved?
4. What remains uncertain or unknown?
5. What is the answer to the original question, at what confidence?

RESEARCH REPORT:
Question: [research question]
Sources reviewed: [N total, N primary, N secondary]
Quality: [N tier-A, N tier-B, N tier-C]

Findings:
1. [finding] — Confidence: [high/medium/low] — Sources: [refs]
2. [finding] — Confidence: [high/medium/low] — Sources: [refs]

Synthesis: [overall answer]
Confidence: [high/medium/low]
Key uncertainties: [what's still unknown]

When to Use

• Research for decisions or plans
• Fact-checking or claim verification
• Literature review
• Due diligence

Verification

• Research question defined precisely
• Multiple source channels searched
• Sources evaluated for credibility
• Findings linked to specific sources
• Synthesis addresses the original question
• Confidence levels stated honestly