127 Cross Afd97cff

Triangulating Mode

Cross-reference multiple sources for verification.

When to Use

• Claim needs validation
• Single source insufficient
• Stakes are high
• Information seems surprising
• Source reliability uncertain

Mental Model

Navigation by triangulation: Fix position from multiple bearings. Where they converge = likely truth.

When Triangulation is Required

Stakes-Based Threshold

Mandatory Triggers

• Claims that would drive major decisions
• Information that seems too good/bad to be true
• Surprising or counterintuitive claims
• Claims contradicting prior beliefs
• Claims from unknown/unreliable sources

Triangulation Patterns

3-Independent

Three unrelated sources agreeing.

Confidence boost: High

Use when: Critical decisions, surprising claims.

Primary-Secondary

Original source plus analyst interpretation.

Confidence boost: Medium

Use when: Need both data and context.

Multi-Method

Same question, different methodologies.

Confidence boost: High

Use when: Methodology could bias results.

Temporal

Same source over time.

Confidence boost: Medium

Use when: Checking for consistency over time.

Execution

Source Independence

Independent sources:

• Different organizations
• Different methodologies
• No shared data source
• No common author/analyst

NOT independent (common mistakes):

• Same original source, different publishers
• Derived from same data
• Same author in different venues
• Press release repackaged by multiple outlets

Process

1. Identify claim — State the claim clearly, note original source, assess initial confidence
2. Gather sources — Find 3+ sources, verify independence, note source type and reliability
3. Assess agreement — Do sources agree? Where do they differ?
4. Analyze conflicts — For disagreements, list possible explanations, assess which is most likely
5. Form conclusion — State verdict with confidence, acknowledge caveats

Confidence Adjustment

Output Format

## Triangulating: [Claim]

**Original claim:** [Statement]
**Original source:** [Where it came from]
**Initial confidence:** [X%]
**Stakes:** [Critical/High/Medium/Low]

### Sources Examined

**Source 1: [Name]**
- Type: [Primary/Secondary/Tertiary]
- Reliability: [High/Medium/Low]
- Finding: [What this source says]
- Supports claim: [Yes/No/Partial]
- Independent from others: [Yes/No — why]

**Source 2: [Name]**
- Type: [Primary/Secondary/Tertiary]
- Reliability: [High/Medium/Low]
- Finding: [What this source says]
- Supports claim: [Yes/No/Partial]
- Independent from others: [Yes/No — why]

**Source 3: [Name]**
- Type: [Primary/Secondary/Tertiary]
- Reliability: [High/Medium/Low]
- Finding: [What this source says]
- Supports claim: [Yes/No/Partial]

### Agreement Analysis

**Agreement level:** [Full/Majority/Mixed/Contradictory]

**Where sources agree:**
- [Agreement point]

**Where sources differ:**
- [Disagreement]: [Source A says X, Source B says Y]
  - Possible explanations: [List]
  - Most likely: [Explanation]

### Conclusion

**Verdict:** [Validated / Partially validated / Uncertain / Invalidated]

**Refined claim:** [If claim needs modification based on findings]

**Confidence:** [X%] — [Why this confidence level]

**Evidence strength:** [Strong/Moderate/Weak]

**Caveats:**
- [Important caveat or limitation]

### Next

**If validated:** [What to do]
**If uncertain:** [What additional verification needed]
**If invalidated:** [What to do]

Quality Gates

Anti-Patterns