Source Validation Workflow
How to validate claims, score confidence, and avoid acting on weak evidence.
In high-impact investigations, response speed matters, but evidence quality matters more. Use this workflow to keep outputs trustworthy under time pressure.
Validation Sequence
- Extract top claims from the response.
- Map each claim to one or more supporting sources.
- Score confidence based on source quality and recency.
- Mark unresolved assumptions before escalation.
Evidence Ladder
Highest Confidence
- Vendor advisories and official patch guidance.
- Direct telemetry from your own environment.
- Primary incident reports with technical artifacts.
Medium Confidence
- Reputable research blogs with reproducible indicators.
- Security news summarizing named primary sources.
Low Confidence
- Aggregator summaries without primary references.
- Claims with no dates, versions, or affected scope.
Claim Audit Prompt
bash
Audit the previous response. For each key claim, provide:
- source link,
- source type (vendor advisory, telemetry, research, etc.),
- confidence (high/medium/low),
- what evidence is still missing.
Escalation Gate
- High-impact actions require high-confidence evidence.
- Medium-confidence claims must include explicit caveats.
- Low-confidence claims should not drive immediate remediation.
Do not merge assumptions into facts
Always keep inferred statements separate from directly observed evidence in shared write-ups.