feat(deep-research): V6.1 source accessibility policy and Counter-Review Team
- Correct source accessibility: distinguish circular verification (forbidden) from exclusive information advantage (encouraged) - Add Counter-Review Team with 5 specialized agents (claim-validator, source-diversity-checker, recency-validator, contradiction-finder, counter-review-coordinator) - Add Enterprise Research Mode: 6-dimension data collection framework with SWOT, competitive barrier, and risk matrix analysis - Update version to 2.4.0 - Add comprehensive reference docs: - source_accessibility_policy.md - V6_1_improvements.md - counter_review_team_guide.md - enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md - enterprise_quality_checklist.md - enterprise_research_methodology.md - quality_gates.md - report_template_v6.md - research_notes_format.md - subagent_prompt.md Based on "深度推理" case study methodology lessons learned. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
daymade
179
deep-research/references/source_accessibility_policy.md
Normal file
179
deep-research/references/source_accessibility_policy.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
|
||||
# Source Accessibility Policy
|
||||
|
||||
**Version**: V6.1
|
||||
**Purpose**: Distinguish between legitimate exclusive information advantages and circular verification traps
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Problem
|
||||
|
||||
In the "深度推理" case study, we made a **methodology error**:
|
||||
|
||||
**What happened**:
|
||||
1. User asked to research **their own company**: "深度推理（上海）科技有限公司"
|
||||
2. We accessed user's **own Spaceship account** (their private registrar)
|
||||
3. Found 25 domains **the user already owned**
|
||||
4. Reported back: "The company owns these 25 domains"
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this is wrong**:
|
||||
- This is **circular reasoning**, not research
|
||||
- User asked us to *discover* information about their company
|
||||
- We instead *queried* their private data and presented it as findings
|
||||
- It's like looking in someone's wallet to tell them how much money they have
|
||||
|
||||
**The real question**: Can an external investigator confirm this company exists?
|
||||
**Answer**: No (WHOIS privacy, no public records)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Principle: No Circular Verification
|
||||
|
||||
### ❌ FORBIDDEN: Self-Verification
|
||||
|
||||
When researching **the user's own assets/company/identity**:
|
||||
|
||||
| Scenario | WRONG | RIGHT |
|
||||
|----------|-------|-------|
|
||||
| User's company | "I found in YOUR registrar that YOU own these domains" | "Public WHOIS shows privacy protection - ownership not externally verifiable" |
|
||||
| User's identity | "I checked YOUR email and found YOUR address" | "Please provide address if relevant to the research" |
|
||||
| User's property | "I accessed YOUR bank to see YOUR balance" | Not applicable to research |
|
||||
|
||||
**Rule**: Cannot use user's private data to "discover" what user already knows about themselves.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ ALLOWED: Exclusive Information Advantage
|
||||
|
||||
When researching **third parties** (competitors, markets, investments):
|
||||
|
||||
| Source Type | Example | Usage |
|
||||
|-------------|---------|-------|
|
||||
| **User's paid subscriptions** | Crunchbase Pro, PitchBook, Wind | ✅ Use to research competitors |
|
||||
| **User's proprietary databases** | Internal CRM, industry databases | ✅ Use to research market |
|
||||
| **User's private APIs** | Trading APIs, data feeds | ✅ Use for investment research |
|
||||
| **User's internal documents** | Prior research, memos | ✅ Use as background for new research |
|
||||
|
||||
**Rule**: User's exclusive information sources are competitive advantages - USE THEM for third-party research.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Distinction
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Research Target: 深度推理（上海）科技有限公司
|
||||
├─ Is this the user's own company? → YES
|
||||
├─ Can we use user's private data about it? → NO (circular)
|
||||
└─ Must rely on: Public sources only
|
||||
|
||||
Research Target: 竞争对手公司 X
|
||||
├─ Is this the user's own company? → NO
|
||||
├─ Can we use user's Crunchbase Pro? → YES (competitive advantage)
|
||||
└─ Can use: Public + User's exclusive sources
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Corrected Methodology
|
||||
|
||||
### When Researching User's Own Company
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach**: External investigator perspective
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: "Research my company 深度推理"
|
||||
|
||||
CORRECT RESPONSE:
|
||||
1. Search public sources (WHOIS, web, news)
|
||||
2. Find: Website placeholder, privacy-protected WHOIS, no news
|
||||
3. Report: "From public perspective: minimal footprint, cannot verify ownership"
|
||||
4. Gap: "Internal data not accessible to external investigators"
|
||||
|
||||
INCORRECT RESPONSE:
|
||||
1. Access user's Spaceship account
|
||||
2. Find: 25 domains user already knows they own
|
||||
3. Report: "The company owns 25 domains" (user already knows this!)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### When User Provides Exclusive Sources
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach**: Leverage competitive advantage
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: "Research competitor X, I have Crunchbase Pro"
|
||||
User: "Here's my API key: xxx"
|
||||
|
||||
CORRECT RESPONSE:
|
||||
1. Use provided Crunchbase Pro API
|
||||
2. Find: Funding history, team info not in public sources
|
||||
3. Report: "Per Crunchbase Pro [exclusive source], X raised $Y in Series Z"
|
||||
4. Cite: Accessibility: exclusive (user-provided)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Source Classification
|
||||
|
||||
### public ✅
|
||||
- Available to any external researcher
|
||||
- Examples: Public websites, news, SEC filings
|
||||
|
||||
### exclusive-user-provided ✅ (FOR THIRD-PARTY RESEARCH)
|
||||
- User's paid subscriptions, private APIs, internal databases
|
||||
- **USE for**: Researching competitors, markets, investments
|
||||
- **DO NOT USE for**: Verifying user's own assets/identity
|
||||
|
||||
### private-user-owned ❌ (FOR SELF-RESEARCH)
|
||||
- User's own accounts, emails, personal data
|
||||
- **DO NOT USE**: Creates circular verification
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Information Black Box Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
When an entity (including user's own company) has no public footprint:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Document what external researcher would find**:
|
||||
- WHOIS: Privacy protected
|
||||
- Web search: No results
|
||||
- News: No coverage
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Report honestly**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Public sources found: 0
|
||||
External visibility: None
|
||||
Verdict: Cannot verify from public perspective
|
||||
Note: User may have private information not available to external investigators
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Do NOT**:
|
||||
- Use user's private data to "fill gaps"
|
||||
- Present user's private knowledge as "discovered evidence"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
When starting research, determine:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Who is the research target?**
|
||||
- User's own company/asset? → Public sources ONLY
|
||||
- Third party? → Can use user's exclusive sources
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Am I discovering or querying?**
|
||||
- Discovering new info? → Research
|
||||
- Querying user's own data? → Circular, not allowed
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Would this finding surprise the user?**
|
||||
- Yes → Legitimate research
|
||||
- No (they already know) → Probably circular verification
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
| Situation | Can Use User's Private Data? | Why? |
|
||||
|-----------|------------------------------|------|
|
||||
| Research user's own company | ❌ NO | Circular verification |
|
||||
| Research competitor using user's Crunchbase | ✅ YES | Competitive advantage |
|
||||
| Research market using user's database | ✅ YES | Exclusive information |
|
||||
| "Discover" user's own domain ownership | ❌ NO | User already knows this |
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user