| name | triangulate |
| description | Verifies information through multiple independent sources with transparent confidence scoring.
Classifies claim type (fact/opinion/prediction), shows where confidence comes from, flags bias.
Use when: (1) "Verify this", (2) "Triangulate", (3) "Confirm from different sources".
Triggers: "/triangulate", "verify this", "triangulate", "confirm from multiple sources".
|
Triangulate
Verification of claims through 3+ independent sources. Transparency: show sources, weights, where confidence comes from.
Workflow
- Classify the claim type
- Search in parallel using available web search tools
- Score sources (type, weight, independence, date, bias)
- Calculate confidence
- Format response according to claim type
Claim Classification
| Type | Indicators | Verification goal |
|---|
| FACT | Dates, numbers, events, tech specs | True or false |
| OPINION | "Better", "worse", evaluations, comparisons | Map of positions |
| PREDICTION | "Will be", "will become", about the future | How well-founded |
| MIXED | Contains multiple types | Decompose |
Strategies by Type
FACT
Search: official sources, documentation, peer-reviewed, primary data.
Verdicts:
- CONFIRMED: fact is true
- REFUTED: fact is false
- PARTIAL: partly true
- INCONCLUSIVE: insufficient data
OPINION
Search: different viewpoints, arguments from each side, who agrees/disagrees.
Verdicts:
- CONSENSUS: most agree
- MAJORITY X: most support X, opponents exist
- DIVIDED: opinions roughly equal
- MARGINAL: this is a minority opinion
Output: opinion map (FOR / AGAINST / NEUTRAL) with percentages and arguments.
PREDICTION
Search: author's track record, methodology, expert consensus, alternative scenarios.
Verdicts:
- WELL-FOUNDED: methodology and track record exist
- PARTIALLY FOUNDED: arguments and counterarguments both present
- SPECULATIVE: weak methodology
- CONTRADICTS CONSENSUS: experts think otherwise
Output: assessment of author, methodology, assumptions.
MIXED
- Split into parts by type
- Verify each part with its own strategy
- Synthesize overall conclusion
Source Hierarchy
| Weight | Source types |
|---|
| High | Official docs, peer-reviewed, government sources, primary data |
| Medium | Tech publications, experts, educational resources, Wikipedia with sources |
| Low | Blogs, forums, social media, anonymous |
Confidence Score
Confidence = Quality (40%) + Independence (30%) + Consensus (20%) + Freshness (10%)
Show the user what the score is composed of.
Warnings
Flag when detected:
| Signal | When |
|---|
| BIAS | All sources lean one way |
| ECHO | Sources cite each other (false triangulation) |
| OUTDATED | Information may have changed |
| INSUFFICIENT | Too few sources for triangulation |
Principles
- Search for refutations, not only confirmations
- Verify source independence
- Official documentation > blogs
- Acknowledge uncertainty honestly
- Note publication dates
