Deep Research Expert Knowledge

Research Methodology

Research Process (5 phases)

• Define: Clarify the question, identify what's known vs unknown, set scope

• Search: Systematic multi-strategy search across diverse sources

• Evaluate: Assess source quality, extract relevant data, note limitations

• Synthesize: Combine findings into coherent answer, resolve contradictions

• Verify: Cross-check critical claims, identify remaining uncertainties

Question Types & Strategies

Question Type Strategy Example

Factual Find authoritative primary source "What is the population of Tokyo?"

Comparative Multi-source balanced analysis "React vs Vue for large apps?"

Causal Evidence chain + counterfactuals "Why did Theranos fail?"

Predictive Trend analysis + expert consensus "Will quantum computing replace classical?"

How-to Step-by-step from practitioners "How to set up a Kubernetes cluster?"

Survey Comprehensive landscape mapping "What are the options for vector databases?"

Controversial Multiple perspectives + primary sources "Is remote work more productive?"

Decomposition Technique

Complex questions should be broken into sub-questions:

Main: "Should our startup use microservices?" Sub-questions:

1. What are microservices? (definitional)
2. What are the benefits vs monolith? (comparative)
3. What team size/stage is appropriate? (contextual)
4. What are the operational costs? (factual)
5. What do similar startups use? (case studies)
6. What are the migration paths? (how-to)

CRAAP Source Evaluation Framework

Currency

• When was it published or last updated?

• Is the information still current for the topic?

• Are the links functional?

• For technology topics: anything >2 years old may be outdated

Relevance

• Does it directly address your question?

• Who is the intended audience?

• Is the level of detail appropriate?

• Would you cite this in your report?

Authority

• Who is the author? What are their credentials?

• What institution published this?

• Is there contact information?

• Does the URL domain indicate authority? (.gov, .edu, reputable org)

Accuracy

• Is the information supported by evidence?

• Has it been reviewed or refereed?

• Can you verify the claims from other sources?

• Are there factual errors, typos, or broken logic?

Purpose

• Why does this information exist?

• Is it informational, commercial, persuasive, or entertainment?

• Is the bias clear or hidden?

• Does the author/organization benefit from you believing this?

Scoring

A (Authoritative): Passes all 5 CRAAP criteria B (Reliable): Passes 4/5, minor concern on one C (Useful): Passes 3/5, use with caveats D (Weak): Passes 2/5 or fewer F (Unreliable): Fails most criteria, do not cite

Search Query Optimization

Query Construction Techniques

Exact phrase: "specific phrase" — use for names, quotes, error messages Site-specific: site:domain.com query — search within a specific site Exclude: query -unwanted_term — remove irrelevant results File type: filetype:pdf query — find specific document types Recency: query after:2024-01-01 — recent results only OR operator: query (option1 OR option2) — broaden search Wildcard: "how to * in python" — fill-in-the-blank

Multi-Strategy Search Pattern

For each research question, use at least 3 search strategies:

• Direct: The question as-is

• Authoritative: site:gov OR site:edu OR site:org [topic]

• Academic: [topic] research paper [year] or site:arxiv.org [topic]

• Practical: [topic] guide or [topic] tutorial or [topic] how to

• Data: [topic] statistics or [topic] data [year]

• Contrarian: [topic] criticism or [topic] problems or [topic] myths

Source Discovery by Domain

Domain Best Sources Search Pattern

Technology Official docs, GitHub, Stack Overflow, engineering blogs [tech] documentation , site:github.com [tech]

Science PubMed, arXiv, Nature, Science site:arxiv.org [topic] , [topic] systematic review

Business SEC filings, industry reports, HBR [company] 10-K , [industry] report [year]

Medicine PubMed, WHO, CDC, Cochrane site:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov [topic]

Legal Court records, law reviews, statute databases [case] ruling , [law] analysis

Statistics Census, BLS, World Bank, OECD site:data.worldbank.org [metric]

Current events Reuters, AP, BBC, primary sources [event] statement , [event] official

Cross-Referencing Techniques

Verification Levels

Level 1: Single source (unverified) → Mark as "reported by [source]"

Level 2: Two independent sources agree (corroborated) → Mark as "confirmed by multiple sources"

Level 3: Primary source + secondary confirmation (verified) → Mark as "verified — primary source: [X]"

Level 4: Expert consensus (well-established) → Mark as "widely accepted" or "scientific consensus"

Contradiction Resolution

When sources disagree:

• Check which source is more authoritative (CRAAP scores)

• Check which is more recent (newer may have updated info)

• Check if they're measuring different things (apples vs oranges)

• Check for known biases or conflicts of interest

• Present both views with evidence for each

• State which view the evidence better supports (if clear)

• If genuinely uncertain, say so — don't force a conclusion

Synthesis Patterns

Narrative Synthesis

The evidence suggests [main finding].

[Source A] found that [finding 1], which is consistent with [Source B]'s observation that [finding 2]. However, [Source C] presents a contrasting view: [finding 3].

The weight of evidence favors [conclusion] because [reasoning]. A key limitation is [gap or uncertainty].

Structured Synthesis

FINDING 1: [Claim] Evidence for: [Source A], [Source B] — [details] Evidence against: [Source C] — [details] Confidence: [high/medium/low] Reasoning: [why the evidence supports this finding]

FINDING 2: [Claim] ...

Gap Analysis

After synthesis, explicitly note:

• What questions remain unanswered?

• What data would strengthen the conclusions?

• What are the limitations of the available sources?

• What follow-up research would be valuable?

Citation Formats

Inline URL

According to a 2024 study (https://example.com/study), the effect was significant.

Footnotes

According to a 2024 study[1], the effect was significant.

[1] https://example.com/study — "Title of Study" by Author, Published Date

Academic (APA)

In-text: (Smith, 2024) Reference: Smith, J. (2024). Title of the article. Journal Name, 42(3), 123-145. https://doi.org/10.xxxx

For web sources (APA):

Author, A. A. (Year, Month Day). Title of page. Site Name. https://url

Numbered References

According to recent research [1], the finding was confirmed by independent analysis [2].

References

1. Author (Year). Title. URL
2. Author (Year). Title. URL

Output Templates

Brief Report

[Question]

Date: YYYY-MM-DD | Sources: N | Confidence: high/medium/low

Answer

[2-3 paragraph direct answer]

Key Evidence

• [Finding 1] — [source]
• [Finding 2] — [source]
• [Finding 3] — [source]

Caveats

• [Limitation or uncertainty]

Sources

1. Source
2. Source

Detailed Report

Research Report: [Question]

Date: YYYY-MM-DD | Depth: thorough | Sources Consulted: N

Executive Summary

[1 paragraph synthesis]

Background

[Context needed to understand the findings]

Methodology

[How the research was conducted, what was searched, how sources were evaluated]

Findings

[Sub-question 1]

[Detailed findings with inline citations]

[Sub-question 2]

[Detailed findings with inline citations]

Analysis

[Synthesis across findings, patterns identified, implications]

Contradictions & Open Questions

[Areas of disagreement, gaps in knowledge]

Confidence Assessment

[Overall confidence level with reasoning]

Sources

[Full bibliography in chosen citation format]

Cognitive Bias in Research

Be aware of these biases during research:

Confirmation bias: Favoring information that confirms your initial hypothesis

• Mitigation: Explicitly search for disconfirming evidence

Authority bias: Over-trusting sources from prestigious institutions

• Mitigation: Evaluate evidence quality, not just source prestige

Anchoring: Fixating on the first piece of information found

• Mitigation: Gather multiple sources before forming conclusions

Selection bias: Only finding sources that are easy to access

• Mitigation: Vary search strategies, check non-English sources

Recency bias: Over-weighting recent publications

• Mitigation: Include foundational/historical sources when relevant

Framing effect: Being influenced by how information is presented

• Mitigation: Look at raw data, not just interpretations

Domain-Specific Research Tips

Technology Research

• Always check the official documentation first

• Compare documentation version with the latest release

• Stack Overflow answers may be outdated — check the date

• GitHub issues/discussions often have the most current information

• Benchmarks without methodology descriptions are unreliable

Business Research

• SEC filings (10-K, 10-Q) are the most reliable public company data

• Press releases are marketing — verify claims independently

• Analyst reports may have conflicts of interest — check disclaimers

• Employee reviews (Glassdoor) provide internal perspective but are biased

Scientific Research

• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are strongest evidence

• Single studies should not be treated as definitive

• Check if findings have been replicated

• Preprints have not been peer-reviewed — note this caveat

• p-values and effect sizes both matter — not just "statistically significant"