Give AI a source set and a precise question. Ask it to separate what those sources support from interpretation, disagreement and missing evidence.
AI can help organise material, but a fluent summary is not proof that a claim or citation is real. Open and check the original sources before relying on the result.
A practical workflow.
Define the question
State what you are trying to find out and what would count as a useful answer. Keep the question narrow enough to compare the evidence.
Choose relevant sources
Provide documents or links you have checked. Include dates and identify which sources are primary, such as official documentation or the original study.
Ask for a source-bound comparison
Request the main claim, supporting evidence, limitations and points of disagreement for each source. Ask the AI to leave unsupported questions unanswered.
Verify the output
Check quoted wording, numbers, dates and citations directly. Distinguish an author’s conclusion from your own inference and record what remains uncertain.
READY TO MAKE YOURS
Start with this prompt.
Help me understand this paper excerpt: [text]. Explain its research question, method, main finding and stated limitations in plain language. Separate what the authors report from your interpretation. Refer to the supplied sections and flag what cannot be determined from the excerpt. Give three questions I should check in the full paper.
Replace the brackets. Leave out private details. Check the response.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
A clearer request.
A VAGUE STARTFind facts to prove my idea.
A CLEARER BRIEFCompare these three sources on my question. Show what each supports, its limitations and any disagreement. Do not add citations you cannot verify or treat missing evidence as agreement.
The prompt allows the evidence to challenge the initial view.
Before you use the result.
- Sources exist and were opened.
- Claims match the original context.
- Dates and sample limitations are visible.
- Interpretations are labelled separately.
A few useful answers.
Is an AI-generated citation reliable?
Verify it. Check that the source exists and actually supports the claim; a plausible title or link is not enough.
What if sources disagree?
Look at the question, methods, dates and scope of each source. Describe the disagreement rather than averaging incompatible conclusions.
PUT THE GUIDE TO WORK
Research prompts that keep claims attached to sources
ChatGPT prompts for research are most useful when they help you frame a question, compare sources and identify what is still unknown. Supply material you can open and check. A fluent answer becomes useful research only when its claims survive that check.
Start with a question small enough to answer
“Research remote work” has no obvious stopping point. “What do these three sources say about the barriers to remote onboarding?” tells you what evidence to collect and compare. State the audience, the decision you need to make and any date or location limits. Keep a separate list of assumptions. If your source set only covers one organisation or one period, the conclusion should keep that boundary instead of speaking for everyone.
Make a claim-to-source table before writing the summary
Give each source a label and retain its title, author or organisation, date and location. For every claim you plan to use, record the supporting passage and what it actually establishes. A source reporting an association does not automatically establish a cause. A quotation still needs context. If two sources disagree, describe the difference in question, method or scope before choosing a summary. This small table gives you something to verify rather than a bibliography that merely looks impressive.
Open a card, copy the prompt and replace the brackets with your own details. Each card includes a follow-up and a check before you use the answer.
SITUATION 01 ↗
Narrow a broad research question
Create a question with a usable scope and stopping point.
Open the prompt +
Help me narrow [topic] into a research question for [audience and decision]. I have [available material] and [time or scope limit]. Offer three questions, explain what evidence each would need, and identify assumptions. Do not answer the questions or invent findings. Recommend the smallest question that still helps the decision.
Refine the next draft
Turn the selected question into inclusion and exclusion rules for sources. Explain what would make a source irrelevant.
Before you use it
Make sure the question serves your actual task rather than the easiest material to find.
SITUATION 02 ↗
Build a claim-to-source table
Expose unsupported statements before they enter the draft.
Open the prompt +
Use only [labelled source excerpts] to check [draft claims]. Return claim, supporting source and passage, degree of support, and limitations. Mark unsupported claims as unsupported. Do not create citations, authors, links or page numbers. Preserve the difference between a source reporting a finding and proving a broader conclusion.
Refine the next draft
Rewrite the unsupported or overstated claims into narrower statements that the supplied evidence supports. Explain each change.
Before you use it
Open the originals and check that excerpts preserve their context.
SITUATION 03 ↗
Compare sources that disagree
Find the reason for a disagreement rather than averaging it away.
Open the prompt +
Compare [source A] and [source B] on [question]. First identify differences in definitions, audience, dates, methods and scope using only the supplied material. Then state where they agree, where they disagree and what cannot be resolved from these excerpts. Do not pick a winner because one sounds more confident.
Refine the next draft
List the additional information that would help resolve the disagreement, ordered by its relevance to my decision.
Before you use it
A difference in scope can explain different findings without making either source wrong.
SITUATION 04 ↗
Write a brief with visible uncertainty
Give a reader a useful answer and the limits they need.
Open the prompt +
Write a research brief from [verified claims table] for [audience]. Include the question, supported findings, important limitations, remaining questions and links supplied in my table. Separate evidence from my interpretation. Do not introduce new facts or citations. Keep the recommendation conditional where the evidence is incomplete.
Refine the next draft
Highlight sentences that go beyond the table. Replace them with a supported statement or a clear open question.
Before you use it
The recommendation should fit the evidence and the consequences of the decision.
The examples below are original, illustrative edits using fictional situations. They show the checks to make, rather than promising what an AI tool will produce.
Copy a source-checking worksheet
Research question: [specific question] Audience / decision: [who needs the answer and why] Scope: [dates, location and exclusions] Source: [label | title | author/organisation | date | URL] Claim: [what I want to say] Support: [passage or page number] Limit: [what this evidence cannot establish] Contradiction / missing evidence: [detail] Next check: [source or person to consult]
WORKED EXAMPLE
Keep a small source set inside its boundary
Illustrative evidence: three staff interviews describe confusing onboarding instructions in one team. No wider survey was conducted.
FIRST DRAFTRemote workers struggle with onboarding because online instructions are ineffective.
AFTER CHECKINGThree interviewees in this team described difficulty finding the current onboarding instructions. Check whether other staff have the same problem before drawing a wider conclusion.
What changed
The revision keeps the observed problem useful while avoiding a universal statement and an unsupported explanation.
WORKED EXAMPLE
A plausible citation still needs checking
Illustrative workflow: a generated summary cites a report title you cannot locate in the supplied sources.
FIRST DRAFTInclude the report because its title fits the conclusion.
AFTER CHECKINGRemove the unsupported citation from the draft. Mark the claim as unverified, search for a real supporting source, and only restore it after checking the original.
What changed
A relevant-looking title is not evidence that a document exists or supports the claim. The claim-to-source table gives the missing item a clear status.
Try it with your own task.
Choose one claim you would be uncomfortable defending without its source. Trace it back to the original, then revise the brief if the support is weaker than the wording.
GO DEEPER / 1 FREE TEMPLATES
Prompts for this part of the task.
Use a template for the step you are working on. Add the required inputs, then check the result against your source material.
Browse the task-guide directory ↗
Use a small workflow that you can repeat.
- Use a small task you understand well enough to review.
- State the goal, context, limits and output format.
- Look for missing facts and uncertain claims before asking for more detail.
- Keep the useful parts, refine one instruction and compare the new result with the first.
Keep in mind: Never assume the tool can browse, see a file or run code just because it says it can. Ask what it actually used and verify important claims yourself.
A research plan with source checks
Know what evidence you need before collecting it.You get: Research plan with source-verification steps+
COPY. PERSONALISE. CHECK.
I want to understand [question] for [purpose]. Break it into three answerable subquestions. For each, describe the evidence needed, a suitable primary source type and a search phrase. If browsing is available, distinguish sources you actually opened from suggestions. Do not invent links or citations. End with a checklist for date, relevance, methodology and uncertainty.
Example input
A student wants to compare two approaches using official reports and original studies.
Illustrative scenario, not a generated or verified AI result.
Then ask
Which subquestion is most likely to change my conclusion, and what evidence would resolve it?
Before using the answer
Open each source and check that it supports the claim attributed to it.
Keep learning from original sources.
These sources inform the workflow and checks; the templates above are original LifestyleGlide prompts.
