Deep Research Workflow

Contract-Governed Deep Research

Use this workflow when a normal research pass is not enough. The workflow has four explicit stages and may only claim completion after the verifier contract passes.

1. Frame and decompose

Write down:

• the decision or question;
• the time boundary and relevant geography or product scope;
• 3–6 non-overlapping sub-questions;
• claims that would materially change the answer;
• acceptable evidence and exclusions.

Do not delegate vague copies of the full question. Each work package must own a distinct sub-question.

2. Gather in parallel

Call subagents_orchestrate with one researcher work package per sub-question. Set wait: true. Every work package must:

1. use deep_research with multiple focused queries;
2. prefer primary, current sources;
3. return a claim ledger with claim, source URL, source date, authority, and whether the source is primary;
4. identify disagreement, missing evidence, and circular sourcing;
5. include these exit criteria:

[
  {"type":"content_contains","text":"Sources"},
  {"type":"content_contains","text":"Caveats"}
]

Ask each investigator to cite stable URLs, not search-result pages. A failed worker contract is evidence of incomplete research, not a reason to silently drop that sub-question.

3. Verify adversarially

After fan-in, call sessions_spawn with specialist researcher, include the complete investigator outputs as context, and ask it to disprove the draft conclusions. The verifier must:

• map every material claim to at least one cited source;
• require two independent domains for claims marked high confidence, unless a single authoritative primary source is controlling;
• flag duplicated domains and sources that merely repeat the same origin;
• identify conflicts and select the controlling source using authority, directness, and recency;
• report unsupported claims and uncovered sub-questions;
• calculate:
  • citation coverage = supported material claims / material claims;
  • source independence = distinct controlling domains / controlling sources;
  • conflict disposition = resolved conflicts / detected conflicts;
• finish with VERDICT: PASS or VERDICT: FAIL.

Use this verifier exit contract:

[
  {"type":"content_contains","text":"VERDICT:"},
  {"type":"content_contains","text":"citation coverage"},
  {"type":"content_contains","text":"unsupported claims"}
]

Do not synthesize a confident final answer after VERDICT: FAIL. Repair the named gaps with one targeted gather-and-verify retry. If it still fails, return the partial result and say exactly what remains unverified.

4. Synthesize

The final response must contain:

1. the bottom line;
2. findings organized around the original decision, not around worker names;
3. inline citations for every material factual claim;
4. explicit disagreement and uncertainty;
5. a compact evidence-quality footer:

Evidence quality
- Citation coverage: <supported>/<material>
- Independent controlling domains: <count>
- Conflicts: <resolved>/<detected>
- Verifier: PASS|FAIL

Never present the number of search hits or agent agreement as corroboration. Independence is measured at the controlling source/domain level.