Source Evaluation

Check Author Credentials

• Named authors with verifiable institutional affiliations are preferred
• Check for author bios, LinkedIn profiles, or institutional pages if credentials are unclear
• Anonymous or pseudonymous authorship reduces reliability — flag as [ANONYMOUS_AUTHOR]
• Press releases and official statements are acceptable without named authors if from recognized organizations

Detect Paywalls and Access Restrictions

• If content is truncated, login-gated, or requires payment, mark [PAYWALLED]
• Attempt fallback: check web.archive.org for a cached version
• If the Wayback Machine has a copy, cite the archive URL instead
• If no accessible version exists, do NOT cite — log as [SOURCE_INACCESSIBLE]

Assess Bias Indicators

• Check for sponsored content labels, advertorial disclosures, or "paid partnership" markers
• Check if the source is a think-tank or advocacy organization — note funding sources if disclosed
• Political or ideological framing should be flagged: [POTENTIAL_BIAS: reason]
• Industry-funded research should be noted but not automatically excluded

Verify URL Accessibility

• Fetch the URL and confirm it returns HTTP 200
• If the URL redirects to a different page, verify the final destination is relevant
• If the URL returns 404, 403, or 500, mark [URL_INACCESSIBLE: HTTP {status}]
• Never cite a URL you have not successfully fetched in the current session

Assign Quality Rating

• HIGH: Primary/governmental/academic sources, named authors, recent, accessible, no bias indicators
• MEDIUM: Established industry publications, news outlets, dated but relevant, minor caveats
• LOW: Blogs, forums, social media, anonymous authors, undated, biased, or partially accessible
• Record the rating in research_sources.md alongside the source entry