Confidence Signals

Confidence Signals

When presenting information from Glean, communicate the reliability, freshness, and authority of your sources clearly.

When This Applies

Use these patterns when:

• Presenting search results that may be outdated
• Information comes from sources with different authority levels
• Results are incomplete or may have gaps
• The user should verify before acting
• Multiple sources have conflicting information
• You're making inferences beyond what sources explicitly state

Part 1: Vetting & Filtering (Before Presenting)

Be skeptical. Not everything Glean returns should be presented. Better to return 3 high-quality results than 10 unvetted mentions.

Vetting Criteria

Before including ANY result, evaluate:

1. Relevance Test

• Does this actually answer the question, or just contain matching keywords?
• Is this about the same thing or just similar terminology?
• ❌ REJECT: Tangential mentions, keyword coincidences, unrelated contexts

2. Authority Test

• 📗 Official: RFCs, approved specs, policies, CODEOWNERS → Include
• 📙 Semi-official: Team wikis, project docs → Include with note
• 📕 Informal: Slack discussions, drafts, personal notes → Include only if no official sources exist
• ❌ REJECT: Clearly superseded or deprecated content

3. Recency Test

• ✅ Current (<3 months): Include with confidence
• ⚠️ Aging (3-12 months): Include with staleness warning
• ❌ Stale (12+ months): Only include if no alternatives, with strong warning
• Ask: "Would this still be true today?"

4. Expertise Test (for people recommendations)

• Did they actually do significant work, or just mentioned it once?
• Are they still in a relevant role?
• Do multiple signals confirm expertise?
• ❌ REJECT: Single mentions, departed employees, outdated ownership

"Nothing Found" Is Valid

If vetting eliminates all candidates, say so clearly:

No high-quality results found for [topic].

**This could mean:**
- The topic is new or undocumented
- Different terminology is used internally
- Access restrictions limit visibility
- This genuinely doesn't exist

**Suggested next steps:**
- Try alternative terms: [suggestions]
- Ask in [relevant Slack channel]
- Check with [likely team]

Never pad results with low-quality matches to avoid saying "nothing found."

Part 2: Confidence Dimensions (When Presenting)

1. Freshness

How recently was this information updated?

How to express:

• "As of [date]..."
• "Last updated [timeframe]..."
• "Note: This doc hasn't been updated since [date]"
• Include "(updated [date])" in source citations

2. Source Authority

How authoritative is this source?

How to express:

• "According to the official [doc type]..."
• "From team documentation (may be informal)..."
• "Based on Slack discussion (not formally documented)..."
• "From meeting notes (verify if critical)..."

3. Completeness

How complete is this information?

How to express:

• "Based on comprehensive documentation..."
• "Found partial information - gaps in [area]"
• "Limited results found - suggest checking with [person/team]"
• "Inferred from related documents (not explicitly stated)..."

4. Corroboration

Do multiple sources agree?

How to express:

• "Confirmed across multiple sources..."
• "Single source - recommend verification"
• "Note: Sources conflict on this point..."

Signal Templates

For Search Results

**[Title]** ([link])
- Updated: [date] ([freshness assessment])
- Source: [authority level]
- Relevance: [why this matches]

For Synthesized Answers

## [Answer]

**Confidence**: [High/Medium/Low]
- Based on [X] sources
- Most recent: [date]
- [Any caveats]

**Sources**:
- [Source 1] - [authority], updated [date]
- [Source 2] - [authority], updated [date]

For Uncertain Information

## [Topic]

**What I Found**: [Information]

**Caveats**:
- [ ] Source is [X] months old - verify currency
- [ ] Based on single source - seek corroboration
- [ ] Inferred, not explicitly stated
- [ ] Conflicts with [other source]

**Suggested Verification**: Contact [person] or check [source]

For Conflicts

## [Topic] - Conflicting Information

| Aspect | Source A | Source B | Assessment |
|--------|----------|----------|------------|
| [Item] | [Says X] | [Says Y] | [Which is likely correct] |

**Recommendation**: Verify with [authoritative source/person]

Common Patterns

Pattern: Stale Documentation

Note: This documentation was last updated [X months ago].
The information may be outdated - verify with [team/person]
if making decisions based on this.

Pattern: Informal Source

This comes from [Slack/meeting notes] rather than formal
documentation. Consider documenting this officially if it's
important knowledge to preserve.

Pattern: AI-Synthesized

This answer was synthesized by Glean's AI across multiple
sources. For critical decisions, verify the underlying
documents directly: [links]

Pattern: Incomplete Results

I found [X] relevant results, but there may be additional
information in [other sources/systems]. This represents
what's accessible through Glean with your current permissions.

Pattern: Strong Confidence

This is well-documented with multiple corroborating sources:
- Official spec: [link]
- Recent meeting confirmation: [link]
- Implementation: [link]

High confidence in this answer.

When to Emphasize Confidence

Always note confidence when:

• User will make a decision based on the information
• Information is time-sensitive
• Sources are from informal channels
• Only one source was found
• The topic involves policy, security, or compliance
• You're synthesizing rather than directly quoting

Relationship to Other Skills

This skill works with:

• synthesis-patterns - When combining multiple sources
• glean-tools-guide - For understanding source types
• enterprise-search - When presenting search results

Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.