Library, instruction
Research with receipts
Every fact gets a source, a date and a confidence label, so you can tell solid findings from shaky ones.
When an AI researches for you, a shaky claim and a solid one come out in the same tidy sentence. Receipts fix that. A receipt is three things attached to every fact: where it came from, how old it is, and how sure you can be. With receipts you can see at a glance which parts to use, which to double-check and which to drop.
Set it up
- Turn on web search or browsing in your assistant.
- Paste the instruction below, either at the top of the chat or into your saved instructions so it applies every time.
- Tell it today's date and ask your question. The date matters: it helps the AI spot sources that are out of date.
- Read the labels before the answer. Use HIGH findings, double-check MEDIUM ones, and treat LOW ones as leads to follow up, not facts.
- Open the sources behind anything you'll repeat or act on. Check that the page exists and says what the AI claims.
- Keep a list of what you used, with the date you checked it. The Source ledger does this in the page.
When I ask you to research or check facts: - Use official and primary sources first (the agency, the company, the law, the original document or data), then reputable reporting about them. Give a link for every factual claim. - Label each finding HIGH (an official or primary source says it), MEDIUM (two or more independent, reputable sources agree) or LOW (one source, or only your own background knowledge). - Give the date of each source and flag anything that may be out of date. Today is [date]. - If you can't find something, say "I couldn't find this". Never say it doesn't exist. - If sources disagree, show both and say which you'd trust and why. - If you are not sure a link is real, write "unconfirmed link" instead of guessing. - End with "What I might have missed". My question: [your question]
The verdict ladder
Most claims are partly true, so true-or-false is too blunt. Once you have the evidence, grade each claim on this ladder. It makes you say what's missing, and it keeps "I couldn't check" separate from "it's wrong".
| Verdict | What it means | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Verified | A primary source confirms it exactly. | The town's own fee schedule lists the permit fee the article quoted. |
| Holds up | Good evidence supports it, with no real problems. | Two independent trade publications report the same price rise. |
| Real but overstated | True at its core, but the size or reach is pushed too far. | "Fees doubled" when they went up 60%. |
| Technically true, but misleading | The words are accurate, but they leave a false picture. | "No complaints filed this year", in January. |
| Unsupported | Only the person making the claim says so, or the evidence is too thin. | A vendor's "trusted by thousands" with nothing behind it. |
| Contradicted | Good evidence says otherwise. | The registry shows the business was formed last year, not "since 2009". |
| Unverifiable | You couldn't check it. Say where you looked. | No public record covers it; you searched the state registry and two news archives. |
- Two independent sources before a verdict above Unsupported. Five articles repeating one press release count as one source.
- If the only evidence is the claimant's own word, the best possible verdict is Unsupported.
- Opinions and slogans ("best in class") don't get a verdict. Grade the claim, not the person.
For each claim below, give one verdict from this ladder and explain in one or two sentences what the evidence shows: Verified | Holds up | Real but overstated | Technically true, but misleading | Unsupported | Contradicted | Unverifiable (say where you looked) Rules: cite a source for every verdict and say if it is PRIMARY (the original record or document) or SECONDARY (reporting about it). If the only source is the party making the claim, the best verdict is Unsupported. Don't grade opinions. Claims: [paste your list]
Worked example: a new permit rule
Marcus runs a small landscaping company. A customer forwards him a post saying the town of Harlow now charges a $400 permit fee for any tree removal. He turns on web search, pastes the research instruction and asks. The answer comes back with two findings. HIGH: the town's own fee schedule, dated this spring, lists a fee for removing trees above a certain trunk size. MEDIUM: a local news story about the change. The $400 figure in the post appears in neither. Marcus grades the post "Real but overstated": there is a new fee, but it doesn't apply to every tree. He tells the customer, with the link to the town's page.
Common mistakes
- Researching with search turned off and trusting the links anyway.
- Reading the summary and skipping the labels. The labels are the point.
- Counting a source twice because two sites copied it.
- Treating "I couldn't find it" as "it isn't true". See "Nothing found", done right.
- Repeating a quote without checking it word for word. See Catch the made-up quote.
No sign-up, and this page sends nothing you do anywhere.
Want this live, with your questions? AI in an hour is $25. Your $25 comes off any session or private booking of $100 or more, within 60 days.