Source cross referencer

Source Cross-Referencer

What This Skill Does

Takes a specific claim and a list of sources you have gathered, then maps which sources support, contradict, or are silent on the claim — so you can see at a glance whether your sourcing is solid before publication.

When To Use This Skill

• You have collected multiple sources on a story and need to know whether they genuinely agree or just appear to
• You are writing a contested claim and want to stress-test whether your sourcing holds up
• An editor has pushed back on a disputed fact and you need to show your evidence clearly
• You are preparing a fact-check package and need a structured comparison of what each source actually says
• You are producing a documentary and need to document that a key claim is independently corroborated

What You Need To Provide

Required: The exact claim you want to cross-reference (one sentence, as it would appear in your story). A list of sources — for each source, paste the relevant excerpt or summarise what it says. Minimum two sources.

Optional: The original context where the claim appears (paragraph or script line). The type of story (news report, documentary, magazine feature, podcast episode). Any known relationship between the sources — for example, if two of them cite the same underlying report.

How the Assistant Approaches This

1. Reads the claim precisely as stated — noting any specific numbers, dates, or qualifiers that a source would need to match exactly to count as corroboration.
2. Examines each source in turn and places it into one of four categories: Supports (source clearly backs the claim), Partially supports (source agrees with the general point but differs on a detail), Contradicts (source directly disputes the claim or gives a different figure), or Silent (source does not address this specific claim).
3. Checks whether sources that appear to agree are actually independent — if two sources trace back to the same original data or rely on the same study, it flags that as a single chain of evidence, not two independent confirmations.
4. Produces a structured comparison table followed by a brief narrative summary: what the weight of evidence shows, where genuine disagreement exists, and what gaps remain before the claim can be published with confidence.

Output Format

Two-part output. First, a source comparison table with columns: Source Name / Type (official data, academic study, eyewitness account, etc.) / Position on Claim / Key Quote or Detail / Caveats. Then a short narrative paragraph (three to five sentences) summarising the overall picture: whether the claim is well-corroborated, contested, or undercooked — and what the journalist should do next. Total length: roughly 300–500 words depending on how many sources are provided. Plain language throughout. No legal advice, no editorial opinion beyond the sourcing assessment.

Quality Criteria

• Every source provided is assessed and placed in a clear category — nothing left unaddressed
• The table distinguishes between sources that independently confirm a claim and sources that merely repeat each other
• Contradictions between sources are named specifically, not smoothed over
• The narrative summary gives a clear next step — what would strengthen the sourcing, or what is good enough to publish
• The output does not invent any sources or add information not contained in what the journalist provided

Example

Input

Claim to cross-reference: "Ambulance response times in the city's northern district averaged 14 minutes last year, well above the national benchmark of 8 minutes."

Sources:

1. Regional health authority annual report — "Mean emergency response time across all districts: 11.3 minutes. Northern district recorded the highest mean at 13.8 minutes."

2. City council budget committee minutes — Councillor quote: "Paramedic shortages have pushed response times in the north to nearly 15 minutes on some nights, which is unacceptable."

3. National ambulance standards body — Published benchmark: "Target response time for Category 2 emergencies is 18 minutes mean, with an aspirational target of 8 minutes. The 8-minute standard applies only to Category 1 life-threatening calls."

4. Investigative piece in a regional newspaper — "Northern district response times hit 14 minutes last year, according to health authority data, more than double the national target."

Output

Source	Type	Position on Claim	Key Detail	Caveat
Regional health authority annual report	Official government data	Partially supports	Records 13.8 min for northern district — close to the claimed 14 min but not identical	Difference of 0.2 min may matter for accuracy
City council budget committee minutes	Official meeting record	Partially supports	References "nearly 15 minutes on some nights" — consistent in direction but this is a peak figure, not an annual average	Councillor is not citing a specific statistic; this is anecdotal corroboration
National ambulance standards body	Official benchmark	Contradicts the framing	The 8-minute standard applies only to Category 1 (life-threatening) calls, not all emergencies	If your story does not specify call category, the comparison is misleading
Regional newspaper	Secondary source	Appears to support	Cites "14 minutes" from health authority data — but is drawing from the same underlying report as your Source 1	Not independent corroboration; both traces to the same primary source

Narrative summary: The claim has solid grounding in official data but two problems need fixing before publication. First, the annual report shows 13.8 minutes, not 14 — a small difference but worth correcting to avoid accuracy challenges. More significantly, the "8-minute national benchmark" framing is contested: the standards body defines that target for life-threatening Category 1 calls only. If the story is comparing all-category averages against a Category 1 target, the comparison is misleading and legally and editorially risky. The regional newspaper piece does not add independent corroboration — it draws on the same health authority data. Recommended next step: confirm the call-category breakdown from the health authority before finalising the claim, and either narrow the benchmark comparison to Category 1 calls or use the 18-minute mean target instead.

Known Limitations

• The assistant cannot access URLs, databases, or documents — it can only assess the information you paste in. If a source excerpt is incomplete or paraphrased, the assessment will only be as good as what you provide.
• This skill does not verify whether the sources themselves are accurate. It maps internal consistency and independence across sources, not ground truth.
• Source categories (Supports / Contradicts / etc.) reflect the claim exactly as worded. If your claim is slightly ambiguous, the assistant will flag that rather than make a judgment call — you may need to tighten the wording first.
• For claims involving legal liability (defamation, privacy), this output is not a substitute for legal review.

Related Skills

• source-credibility-brief
• statistics-verifier
• claim-verification-checklist