Source Evaluator

Source Evaluator — Structured Evidence Assessment

This is an action skill that produces structured evaluations of historical sources. It operationalizes the source-criticism knowledge skill into a repeatable output template. Given a specific source — a document, artifact, image, or claim — it produces a systematic assessment of provenance, bias, reliability, and analytical value.

When This Applies

• User presents a specific historical document and asks "what can this tell us?"
• User encounters a historical claim and wants it evaluated
• User wants to practice source criticism with guided structure
• User needs to assess whether a source is reliable for a specific question

The Evaluation Process

Step 1 — Identify

Establish basic facts about the source before interpretation:

• What is it? (Document, artifact, image, statistical record, oral testimony?)
• When was it created? (Date and distance from the events it describes)
• Who created it? (Author, institution, anonymous?)
• Where does it survive? (Archive, museum, digital reproduction?)

Step 2 — Apply PACT Protocol

From source-criticism:

• Perspective: From whose viewpoint?
• Audience: For whom was this created?
• Context: What was happening when this was created?
• Type: What genre conventions apply?

Step 3 — Assess Reliability

• What can this source credibly tell us?
• What can it not tell us?
• Where might it be biased, incomplete, or misleading?
• What corroborating or contradicting evidence exists?

Step 4 — Render Verdict

Produce a structured assessment using the template below.

Output Template

═══════════════════════════════════════════
SOURCE EVALUATION
═══════════════════════════════════════════

SOURCE: [Full identification]
TYPE: [Primary / Secondary] | [Genre] | [Medium]
DATE: [Creation date] | [Distance from events: contemporary / near / remote]

CREATOR
  Who: [Author / institution / anonymous]
  Position: [Social, political, institutional role]
  Access: [Direct witness / secondhand / reconstruction]

PACT ANALYSIS
  Perspective: [Whose viewpoint; what they can see; what is hidden]
  Audience: [Intended recipient; how audience shapes content]
  Context: [Conditions of creation; pressures and incentives]
  Type: [Genre conventions that shape content]

RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT
  Credible for: [What this source can tell us]
  Unreliable for: [What this source cannot tell us]
  Key biases: [Specific biases identified]
  Silence: [What is notably absent]

CORROBORATION
  Supported by: [Other sources that confirm]
  Contradicted by: [Other sources that disagree]
  Unique claims: [What only this source asserts]

VERDICT
  Analytical value: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW] for [specific question]
  Best used for: [What question this source best answers]
  Handle with care: [Specific warnings for interpretation]
═══════════════════════════════════════════

Anti-Patterns

• Treating primary = trustworthy: Primary sources are close to events but embedded in their biases
• Ignoring genre: A saint's life, a court chronicle, and a tax record require different evaluation methods
• Skipping corroboration: No single source should be the sole basis for a historical claim
• Binary verdicts: Sources are not "reliable" or "unreliable" — they are reliable for specific questions and unreliable for others