web-research

Research $ARGUMENTS using public web sources.

Step 1: Choose tier

Pick the tier based on what's needed:

Tier	When to use	Sources	Output
Quick	Fast answer, known domain	2-3 sources	1-2 paragraphs
Standard	Structured overview	5-8 sources	Sections with source list
Deep	Exhaustive, unfamiliar domain	10+ sources	Full report with cross-referenced findings

If the tier isn't specified, default to Standard. Use Quick only when the question is narrow and factual. Use Deep when the domain is unfamiliar or the stakes are high enough to warrant comprehensive sourcing.

Step 2: Source discovery (unfamiliar domains only)

Before searching in an unfamiliar domain, identify what the authoritative sources ARE. Don't assume — the right sources vary by field.

Search: "[domain] official data", "[domain] public registry", "[domain] primary sources".

Authority hierarchy for most domains:

Authority level	Examples
Government / regulatory	ABS, Stats NZ, RBA, APRA, FCA, SEC, FDA
Academic / peer-reviewed	Google Scholar, PubMed, arXiv, SSRN
Industry association	Standards bodies, trade associations
Journalism	Reuters, AP, ABC News, RNZ, BBC, FT
Analyst / research	Gartner, IDC, IBISWorld AU
Company / product	Official documentation, press releases
Community / opinion	Blogs, forums, social media

Work from the top down. Don't cite a blog when a government dataset exists.

Step 3: Search

For Quick tier:

• Run 2-3 targeted searches
• Fetch the most relevant result
• Extract the answer

For Standard tier:

• Run 4-6 searches across different angles (definitions, data, criticism, recent developments)
• Fetch the 4-6 most relevant sources
• Look for where sources agree and where they conflict

For Deep tier:

• Start with source discovery (Step 2) regardless of domain familiarity
• Run 8-12 searches covering the topic from multiple angles
• Fetch 10+ sources, prioritising primary and authoritative sources
• Identify where sources contradict each other — that gap is often the most important finding
• Cross-reference every key claim across at least two independent sources

Step 4: Synthesise

For Quick: answer the question directly.

For Standard and Deep: organise findings by theme, not by source. The reader wants to understand the topic, not to read a list of what each website said.

Where sources conflict, explain the conflict rather than choosing a side arbitrarily. Conflicting findings are often the most useful output.

Rules

• Never cite a source you haven't read. Fetch the page before including it.
• Absence is a finding. If the expected authoritative source has nothing on this topic, note it.
• Don't pad Quick answers into Standard length or Standard into Deep. Match depth to the tier.
• For AU/NZ topics, use AU/NZ sources first: ABS, Stats NZ, ABC News, RNZ, ASIC, APRA — before defaulting to US or UK sources.
• Label clearly when a finding is contested or uncertain rather than presenting all findings with equal confidence.

Output format

Quick

**[Topic]**

[Direct answer — 1-3 paragraphs]

**Sources:** [inline citations]

Standard

## Research: [Topic]

**Date:** [today]
**Tier:** Standard
**Sources:** [count]

### [Theme 1]

[Findings]

### [Theme 2]

[Findings]

### Key uncertainties

[Where sources conflict or evidence is thin]

### Sources

1. [Title](URL) — [what it contributed]

Deep

## Research report: [Topic]

**Date:** [today]
**Tier:** Deep
**Sources:** [count]

### Summary

[3-5 sentence overview of what the research found]

### [Section 1]

[Findings with inline citations]

### [Section 2]

[Findings with inline citations]

### Cross-reference check

Key claims verified across multiple independent sources:

| Claim | Source 1 | Source 2 | Agreement |
|---|---|---|---|
| [claim] | [source] | [source] | Yes / Partial / No |

Claims confirmed by a single source only:

- [claim] — [source] — single source, treat as unverified

### Conflicting evidence

[Where sources disagree and what the conflict reveals]

### Gaps

[What couldn't be established from public sources]

### Sources

1. [Title](URL) — [authority level] — [what it contributed]