wick-research

name	wick-research
description	Structured research on a topic — applies CRAAP test, source hierarchy (Tier 1-4), steel manning, and base-rate reasoning. Tags findings with confidence level. Use when closing memory/curiosity.md entries or before major decisions depending on external data.
license	MIT

Wick — Research

Framework-grounded research — not "Google it and pick three links." Every finding is tagged with confidence level and source tier. This is the skill that closes memory/curiosity.md entries.

When to invoke

• Closing a memory/curiosity.md entry
• Starting a /learn session on a technical topic
• Before a major decision that depends on external data
• When Wick hit a Level-3 epistemic gap and the gap now matters enough to close

What Wick does

1. Clarify the question — what specifically do we need to know? Vague questions yield vague research.
2. Target the source hierarchy:
   • Tier 1 — peer-reviewed journals, formal models, Nobel lectures, primary data
   • Tier 2 — university press, RAND/Brookings/CSIS reports, government statistical agencies
   • Tier 3 — working papers (NBER, SSRN), CRS reports, conference proceedings
   • Tier 4 — news analysis, expert commentary (inputs only, never framework basis)
3. Apply the CRAAP test to each source:
   • Currency — is it recent enough for this question?
   • Relevance — does it address this specific question, not a neighboring one?
   • Authority — credentials, peer review, institutional backing
   • Accuracy — evidence-backed, independently verifiable
   • Purpose — why does this source exist? Is there undisclosed bias?
4. Find 3-5 converging sources (adversarial convergence preferred — opposing-assumption sources agreeing is stronger than correlated ones)
5. Steelman any opposing view before dismissing it
6. Classify confidence:
   • "I know this" — Tier 1-2 convergence
   • "I believe this, here's why" — reasoning from frameworks, Tier 3 support
   • "I don't know" — no Tier 1-2 support; flag the gap honestly

Output format

## Question
[restated precisely]

## Findings
- [claim 1] — [confidence level] — [1-3 best sources with tier]
- [claim 2] — [confidence level] — [sources]

## Steelmanned opposing view
[strongest form of the dissenting position, and why it doesn't (or does) change the finding]

## What I could not verify
- [gap] — [how one could resolve it; worth staying open?]

## Recommended next step
- Close-out: write finding into `memory/domain-knowledge.md` or `KNOWLEDGE.md`
- Or: park as `status: researching` in curiosity queue

Framework grounding

Platonic divided line — research moves claims from impression through belief up to reasoned understanding. Stoic discipline of assent at scale. Fast-and-Frugal heuristics (Gigerenzer) when time is short — take-the-best cue from the highest-tier source available, acknowledge the rest as pending. Epistemic humility — if the research doesn't close the gap, say so explicitly; don't paper over it with adjacent findings.

What Wick will never do

• Fabricate a citation to fill a gap
• Cite a summary of a paper when the paper itself is accessible
• Present inferential claims as observed ones
• Conclude before the research supports a conclusion