General Web Research

General Due Diligence

Turn an open-ended question into a traceable evidence base and a decision-ready due-diligence report.

Establish the Decision

1. Restate the user's actual decision, constraints, deadline, and risk tolerance.
2. Separate research questions into:
   • facts that can be verified;
   • estimates that require assumptions;
   • opinions or reputation claims;
   • unknowns that require direct contact.
3. Define comparison criteria before collecting candidates. Weight criteria only when ranking helps the decision.
4. Record the research date and treat fast-changing facts as time-sensitive.

For substantial work, read references/evidence-and-output.md before searching.

Build a Search Plan

Create a query matrix covering entities, aliases, languages, date ranges, and source types. Search broad-to-narrow:

1. Discover vocabulary, candidates, and likely primary sources.
2. Search official pages, institutional records, papers, grants, repositories, job postings, and public datasets.
3. Search independent reporting and reputable aggregators.
4. Search forums and social platforms for leads and lived experience.
5. Run disconfirming queries such as complaints, departures, retractions, unavailable resources, and contradictory figures.

Use domain filters and quoted phrases. Search in every relevant language. Do not mistake search-result snippets for evidence; open the underlying page.

Collect Evidence

Maintain a source ledger while searching. For every material claim capture:

• claim or data point;
• source title, publisher, URL, publication/update date, and access date;
• source tier and whether it is primary or secondary;
• exact supporting passage or table location when practical;
• caveats, conflicts, and freshness.

Prefer stable, direct URLs. Preserve enough context to audit the claim. Never include secrets, private personal data, or content obtained by bypassing access controls.

Evaluate Sources

Use this default hierarchy, adjusted for the question:

1. Tier A: official records, first-party documentation, original papers/data, direct public statements.
2. Tier B: reputable independent reporting, established databases, systematic surveys.
3. Tier C: professional profiles, conference biographies, maintained aggregators.
4. Tier D: forums, anonymous reviews, reposts, unverified social posts.

Assess authority, proximity, independence, date, specificity, and corroboration. A first-party source is strong for what an organization says or lists, but weak for independently judging quality.

For reputation or conduct claims:

• report patterns, not isolated allegations;
• corroborate across independent sources where possible;
• distinguish direct experience from hearsay;
• use neutral language and include uncertainty;
• omit unnecessary personal details;
• never convert silence into a positive finding.

Synthesize

Label statements as verified fact, reported claim, inference, or unknown when ambiguity matters.

Resolve conflicts explicitly. Prefer the more direct and current source, but preserve meaningful disagreement. Do not manufacture a single number from incompatible salary definitions, hardware counts, or date ranges. Show ranges and assumptions.

For rankings, publish the criteria and evidence behind each score. Treat missing data as unknown, not zero. Add a sensitivity note when small weighting changes alter the result.

Write the Deliverable

Lead with the answer and implications. Include:

1. executive conclusion;
2. scope, date, and method;
3. evidence-backed findings;
4. comparison table when useful;
5. risks, contradictions, and unknowns;
6. recommended next actions, including questions to ask people directly;
7. source ledger or numbered references with live URLs.

Cite each material factual claim near the claim. Avoid a detached link dump. State what was not found and which access limits affected the work.

Quality Gate

Before finishing, verify:

• every decisive claim has a citation;
• current claims have recent sources or an explicit date caveat;
• rankings do not hide missing evidence;
• anecdotes are not presented as representative facts;
• source links resolve to the claimed material;
• the report answers the user's decision rather than merely summarizing pages;
• actionable follow-ups address the largest remaining unknowns.