multi-source-investigation

# Multi-Source Investigation

This skill guides systematic investigation across diverse sources with rigorous validation.

## Phase 1: Investigation Scope

### Central Question
- What exactly are you investigating?
- What would a complete answer look like?
- What level of certainty is needed?

### Stakeholder Mapping
Identify who has knowledge or interests:
- Domain experts
- Practitioners
- Affected parties
- Critics/skeptics
- Regulators/authorities

### Known Perspectives
- What positions already exist on this topic?
- Who holds each position?
- What evidence supports each?

**CHECKPOINT**: Confirm investigation scope with user.

## Phase 2: Source Diversification

### Source Type Matrix

| Type | Strengths | Limitations | Examples |
|------|-----------|-------------|----------|
| Academic | Peer-reviewed, rigorous | May lag current events | Journals, conferences |
| Official | Authoritative | May have political bias | Government, institutions |
| Industry | Practical, current | Commercial interests | White papers, reports |
| Journalism | Accessible, current | Variable quality | News outlets |
| Expert | Deep knowledge | Individual perspective | Interviews, blogs |
| Primary | Direct evidence | Needs interpretation | Data, documents |

### Minimum Source Diversity
Aim for at least:
- 2+ academic sources
- 2+ credible news/journalism sources
- 1+ official/institutional source
- 1+ expert commentary
- Primary data when available

## Phase 3: Systematic Retrieval

### Search Execution
For each source type:

**Academic**:
```
site:arxiv.org OR site:scholar.google.com [topic]
```

**News/Journalism**:
```
site:reuters.com OR site:apnews.com [topic]
```

**Official**:
```
site:gov OR site:edu [topic]
```

### Information Extraction
For each source, document:
- Source metadata (author, date, outlet)
- Key claims made
- Evidence provided
- Methodology (if applicable)
- Potential biases
- Links to other sources

## Phase 4: Credibility Assessment

### CRAAP Test
| Criter