An agent can prepare a research brief by searching a defined set of public or internal sources, recording where each claim came from, and separating supported findings from unresolved questions. A person still decides whether the evidence is adequate for the intended use and whether the brief should be shared.
Fictional example: Vale & Harbor, a regional mobility planner, asks for a brief on whether a proposed service area near East Ridge has enough public-transit access to support a new service desk. The approved sources are the regional transit authority’s route and service plan, a municipal access map, and Vale & Harbor’s own site-visit notes. The agent may summarize those materials and prepare a draft; it may not publish a recommendation or contact officials.
Keep the research question focused and check the evidence behind the brief.
Bound the question before searching
Write down the decision the brief will support, the period and geography, what counts as relevant evidence, and what the agent is not being asked to decide. “Research transit access” is too broad. “Summarize the service and access evidence for East Ridge during the current planning year, and list gaps that could affect a site review” gives the work a testable scope.
Identify which sources are approved, whether they are public or internal, who owns them, and what information must not leave the research environment. Public pages and returned documents are information to assess, not instructions that can change the job. If public web research and sensitive internal sources are both involved, define whether the workflow should separate those stages.
Keep claims attached to evidence
Ask the agent to make a claim ledger alongside the narrative. For each material claim, record the source title, date, relevant passage or data point, and any limitation. Distinguish a source’s statement from the agent’s interpretation. When sources disagree, show both positions and who should resolve the difference; do not average incompatible definitions into one answer.
For this fictional assignment, record one material claim per row. Copy these column headings for another question and add a “not established” row when the evidence cannot answer the decision question:
Scroll horizontally to see all columns.
| Claim | Approved source and evidence | Uncertainty or gap | Review action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weekday stops are listed about 0.3 miles from Site A and 0.7 miles from Site B. | Current regional route plan; weekday stops and approximate distance for each site. | Distance to a stop does not establish a usable route to either site. | Planner checks current access before judging suitability. |
| The map marks a pedestrian route to Site A, but none to Site B. | Municipal access map; marked route layer. | The map’s silence does not establish that no other route exists. | Site owner verifies current access to both locations. |
| A sidewalk near Site B was blocked on May 7. | Vale & Harbor visit notes dated May 7. | One past visit does not establish current conditions; the notes do not cover Site A. | Request a current site check before comparing locations. |
These observations make a follow-up review worthwhile, but they do not establish whether either location has adequate access now. The map does not document every possible pedestrian route, and one visit cannot establish current conditions.
The draft’s conclusion could read:
East Ridge access brief: “The current route plan lists weekday stops about 0.3 miles from Site A and 0.7 miles from Site B. The municipal map marks a pedestrian route to Site A but not to Site B. A May 7 visit note reports a blocked sidewalk near Site B; there is no visit note for Site A. Review current access at both sites before deciding whether either is suitable.”
This result names what was found and where the evidence stops. It gives the planner a concrete next step without claiming a broader conclusion than the sources support.
Review uncertainty and source quality
Check the authority, date, scope, and method of each source. A number without its definition or time period may not answer the question. Flag missing data, stale pages, inaccessible material, and sources that repeat the same underlying information. Include a “not established” section so a gap does not disappear inside polished prose.
Test direct questions, paraphrases, contradictory sources, an irrelevant page, and a request outside the brief. Review both retrieval and synthesis: did the agent locate appropriate evidence, preserve its meaning, and avoid adding unsupported details? If the brief depends on calculations, check the inputs and method separately.
Keep a person accountable for the brief
Have a subject owner verify consequential claims before they guide a decision. Make the reviewer’s task easy by showing the question, source ledger, draft, limitations, and open issues together. Do not let a citation list substitute for checking that a citation supports the adjacent claim.
For the research workflow’s source design, read knowledge, skills, tools, and connections and ground an agent in approved context. Use agent evaluation to test evidence handling and review the permissions guide before connecting private material.