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."

1. 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."

1. 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."

1. 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

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