Not every source deserves the same level of trust.
Evaluate where the information came from, how the evidence was produced, whether incentives could affect the conclusion and whether the source is actually relevant to your research question.
Act as an experienced research analyst and source-quality evaluator. TASK: Evaluate the reliability, credibility and usefulness of the source described below. SOURCE: [Paste the source content, citation, link details, publication information or summary.] SOURCE TYPE: [Example: government report, academic paper, company website, blog post, news article, social media post, marketplace listing, research report.] AUTHOR / ORGANIZATION: [Who produced the source?] PUBLICATION DATE: [Date if known.] RESEARCH QUESTION: [What question are you trying to answer with this source?] CLAIM BEING EVALUATED: [What specific fact, statistic, conclusion or statement are you relying on?] TARGET CONTEXT: [Business, academic, market research, journalism, decision-making, general knowledge, etc.] OTHER SOURCES AVAILABLE: [List any supporting or conflicting sources.] EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS: 1. SOURCE IDENTIFICATION Identify: - Source type - Author or organization - Publication or platform - Publication date - Whether it is a primary or secondary source If any information is missing, state that clearly. 2. AUTHORITY Evaluate: - Author expertise - Organization reputation - Relevant qualifications - Institutional credibility - Subject-matter authority Do not assume authority based only on a professional-looking website. 3. EVIDENCE QUALITY Check whether the source provides: - Data - Citations - Methodology - Original evidence - Supporting documentation - Named sources - Transparent calculations Distinguish evidence from opinion. 4. METHODOLOGY If the source contains research, survey results, estimates or statistics, evaluate: - Sample size - Sampling method - Data collection method - Time period - Geographic scope - Definitions used - Limitations - Whether the methodology is transparent Do not treat a number as reliable just because it is precise. 5. PRIMARY VS SECONDARY SOURCE Determine whether the source: - created the original information - reported someone else's findings - summarized multiple sources - repeated information without identifying the origin When possible, recommend locating the original source. 6. RECENCY Evaluate whether the publication date is suitable for the research question. Classify the information as: - Current - Possibly outdated - Outdated - Date unknown Explain why recency matters for this topic. 7. RELEVANCE Evaluate how directly the source answers the research question. Consider: - geography - industry - audience - product category - customer segment - time period - research scope A credible source can still be irrelevant to the specific question. 8. BIAS & INCENTIVES Look for possible sources of bias such as: - commercial interest - political interest - organizational interest - promotional content - advocacy - selective reporting - sponsorship - affiliate incentives Do not automatically reject a source because bias is possible. Evaluate whether the evidence remains useful despite the incentive. 9. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Identify disclosed or apparent conflicts such as: - study funded by a company benefiting from the result - author selling the product being evaluated - sponsored research - undisclosed affiliate relationships - competitor-produced comparisons Explain how this should affect confidence. 10. CLAIM SUPPORT For the specific claim being evaluated, classify the support as: - Strongly supported - Reasonably supported - Weakly supported - Unsupported - Cannot determine Explain the reason. 11. CORROBORATION Identify whether the claim should be verified using additional sources. Recommend the best type of independent confirmation. Examples: - government statistics - original research - financial filings - regulator data - academic studies - multiple independent news sources - direct company information 12. RED FLAGS Check for: - no named author - no publication date - missing methodology - sensational language - unsupported statistics - anonymous claims - circular citations - outdated information - copied content - vague references to "studies" - excessive promotional language - misleading charts - cherry-picked evidence Do not assume a red flag automatically makes the entire source unusable. 13. INFORMATION GAPS List information needed to evaluate the source more confidently. 14. USABILITY Explain whether the source is appropriate for: - Background understanding - Supporting a minor claim - Supporting an important factual claim - Business decision-making - Academic citation - High-stakes decisions 15. CONFIDENCE RATING Give the source an overall confidence rating: - High - Medium - Low - Insufficient information Provide a short justification. 16. FINAL VERDICT Summarize: - What can reasonably be trusted - What should be treated cautiously - What needs verification - Whether the source should be used OUTPUT FORMAT: 1. Source Overview 2. Authority Assessment 3. Evidence Quality 4. Methodology Review 5. Primary vs Secondary Source 6. Recency 7. Relevance 8. Bias & Incentives 9. Conflicts of Interest 10. Claim Support 11. Corroboration Needed 12. Red Flags 13. Information Gaps 14. Appropriate Uses 15. Confidence Rating 16. Final Verdict IMPORTANT: - Do not invent missing source information. - Do not assume credibility because a source looks professional. - Do not dismiss sources automatically because they are commercial, biased or secondary. - Evaluate the actual evidence. - Separate credibility from relevance. - Clearly state uncertainty. - For important claims, recommend verification from independent or primary sources when appropriate.
Use the prompt effectively.
Evaluate the specific claim
A source may be useful for one claim but weak for another. Identify exactly what information you intend to rely on.
Check where the evidence started
Trace statistics and research back to the original report, dataset or study whenever possible instead of relying on repeated summaries.
Separate credibility from relevance
A highly credible source can still be unsuitable if it covers the wrong country, customer group, industry or time period.
Verify important findings
For decisions that matter, compare the claim against independent evidence rather than depending on one source.
Evaluate the evidence behind a confident statistic.
Source: A software company's blog article claiming that 80% of small businesses lose money because of poor inventory management.
Source type: Company blog.
Author: Software provider.
Publication date: 2025.
Research question: How common are inventory-control problems among small businesses?
Claim: 80% of small businesses lose money because of inventory problems.
Authority: The company may have relevant industry experience, but it also has a commercial interest in highlighting inventory problems.
Evidence quality: The claim should not be treated as reliable unless the article identifies the original dataset, study or survey methodology.
Primary vs secondary: If the company is quoting another study, the original study should be located and evaluated.
Claim support: Weakly supported until the source, sample size, geography, definitions and research method behind the 80% figure can be verified.
Recommended action: Find the original research and compare the result with independent small-business or inventory-management data.
Evaluate sources more carefully.
Follow statistics to the original source
Many articles repeat the same number. Several websites quoting it does not provide independent confirmation if all of them trace back to one weak source.
Watch the publication date
Older research may still be useful for stable topics, but pricing, technology, markets and customer behaviour often require recent evidence.
Commercial sources can still help
Company reports and industry content can provide useful information. Treat incentives as part of the evaluation rather than automatically rejecting the source.