Knowledge Synthesis

Knowledge Synthesis

Combine and reconcile information scattered across enterprise tools into a single, authoritative summary with proper attribution and confidence scoring.

Synthesis Process

Step 1: Understand the Knowledge Request

Classify the request type:

Extract from the user's request:

• Core topic or question being investigated
• Scope boundaries — what to include and exclude
• Target audience — who will consume this synthesis
• Desired format — narrative, bullet points, Q&A, timeline

Step 2: Multi-Source Information Gathering

Query each relevant source with topic-appropriate search terms:

1. Wiki / Knowledge Base — Canonical documentation, policies, architecture docs
2. Documents — Specs, proposals, meeting notes, design docs
3. Email — Decisions, approvals, context from stakeholder threads
4. Chat / Messaging — Informal decisions, real-time discussions, shared links
5. Tickets / Issues — Implementation details, bugs, feature requests
6. Code Repositories — READMEs, comments, commit messages (if connected)

For each source, capture:

• The specific information found
• The date of the information
• The author or contributor
• The confidence level (verified, likely, uncertain)

Step 3: Reconcile and Cross-Reference

Step 4: Structure the Synthesis

Output Format

# Knowledge Synthesis: [Topic]
Generated: [date] | Sources: [count] sources across [count] tools
Confidence: [High/Medium/Low] — [reason]

## Executive Summary
[2-4 sentence overview of key findings]

## Key Facts
| Fact                     | Source          | Date       | Confidence |
|--------------------------|-----------------|------------|------------|
| [Fact 1]                 | [Source + link] | [date]     | High       |
| [Fact 2]                 | [Source + link] | [date]     | Medium     |

## Detailed Findings

### [Subtopic 1]
[Narrative synthesis of what is known]

**Sources:**
- [Source 1]: [what it contributed]
- [Source 2]: [what it contributed]

### [Subtopic 2]
[Narrative synthesis of what is known]

**Sources:**
- [Source 1]: [what it contributed]

## Conflicts and Ambiguities
- **[Topic]**: [Source A] says X (as of [date]), but [Source B] says Y (as of [date]).
  Recommended resolution: [suggestion]

## Knowledge Gaps
- [ ] [What is unknown or not found in any source]
- [ ] [Questions that remain unanswered]
- [ ] [Areas where information is stale and needs refresh]

## Timeline of Key Events
| Date       | Event                           | Source        |
|------------|---------------------------------|---------------|
| [date]     | [Event description]             | [Source]      |

## Source Index
| # | Source                | Type   | Last Updated | Items Used |
|---|----------------------|--------|--------------|------------|
| 1 | [Document name/link] | Doc    | [date]       | [count]    |
| 2 | [Channel name]       | Chat   | [date]       | [count]    |
| 3 | [Ticket ID]          | Ticket | [date]       | [count]    |

Synthesis Depth Levels

Shallow (Quick Answer)

• Search top 5 results per source
• Return the most authoritative single answer
• Include 1-2 supporting citations
• Target: under 200 words

Medium (Topic Briefing)

• Search top 15 results per source
• Cross-reference across 2-3 sources minimum
• Identify key facts, people, and dates
• Target: 300-800 words

Deep (Comprehensive Analysis)

• Exhaustive search across all sources
• Full cross-referencing and conflict resolution
• Timeline construction and trend analysis
• Knowledge gap identification
• Target: 800-2000 words

Quality Standards

• Attribution: Every claim must cite at least one source
• Recency: Always note the date of information; flag anything older than 90 days
• Neutrality: Present conflicting viewpoints without bias
• Completeness: Explicitly state what was NOT found (knowledge gaps)
• Traceability: Reader should be able to verify any claim by following the source link
• No hallucination: Never infer or fabricate information not found in sources

Edge Cases

• No results found: Report clearly that no information was found; suggest alternative search terms or sources to check manually
• Single source only: Produce the synthesis but prominently note the single-source limitation
• Highly conflicting sources: Escalate to the user before choosing a "winner"; present both sides
• Sensitive or restricted content: If a source indicates restricted access, note the existence of the source without revealing restricted content
• Stale information: If all sources are older than 6 months, add a staleness warning to the synthesis

Follow-Up Options

After delivering the synthesis, offer:

1. "Want me to go deeper on any subtopic?"
2. "Should I search for additional sources to fill the knowledge gaps?"
3. "Want me to turn this into a shareable document or wiki page?"
4. "Should I set up alerts for new information on this topic?"

Quality Checklist

• Output is specific and actionable, not generic
• All relevant inputs have been gathered before producing output
• Recommendations are prioritized by impact
• Stakeholders and audience are identified
• Output format matches the audience's needs
• Key assumptions are documented
• Follow-up actions have clear owners