# Critical Thinking Framework for Source Evaluation

<framework_metadata priority="HIGH">
<version>2.0</version>
<purpose>Systematic evaluation of sources and claims with hierarchical quality standards</purpose>
<application>Use during research phase for every source</application>
<enforcement>MUST be applied to ALL sources before accepting claims</enforcement>
</framework_metadata>

<source_quality_hierarchy priority="CRITICAL">
<tier name="gold_standard" priority="CRITICAL" level="1">
  <definition>Highest quality sources requiring minimal additional verification</definition>
  <sources>
    Peer-reviewed journals (Nature, Science, PNAS, domain-specific top journals)
    Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
    Official technical documentation (RFCs, language specs, API docs)
    Primary research with reproducible methodology
  </sources>
  <enforcement>PRIORITIZE these sources over all others when available</enforcement>
</tier>

<tier name="high_quality_secondary" priority="HIGH" level="2">
  <definition>High-quality sources with established peer review processes</definition>
  <sources>
    Academic textbooks from reputable publishers
    Technical books with strong peer review (O'Reilly, Manning, etc.)
    Official organizational reports (WHO, IEEE, ACM)
    Established technical blogs with author expertise (e.g., Martin Fowler for software)
  </sources>
  <enforcement>ACCEPTABLE for primary claims when Tier 1 unavailable</enforcement>
</tier>

<tier name="acceptable_supporting" priority="MEDIUM" level="3">
  <definition>Acceptable sources requiring additional verification for critical claims</definition>
  <sources>
    Reputable news outlets with fact-checking (Reuters, AP, BBC)
    Community-validated resources (high-quality Stack Overflow answers with votes)
    Conference proceedings and white papers
    Well-maintained documentation (MDN, official tutorials)
  </sources>
  <enforcement>USE for supporting evidence, require verification for primary claims</enforcement>
</tier>

<tier name="extreme_caution" priority="HIGH" level="4">
  <definition>Sources requiring extensive verification and explicit limitation notation</definition>
  <sources>
    Personal blogs without clear expertise
    Medium/Substack unless author is recognized expert
    YouTube/Video content unless from educational institutions
    Any source trying to sell something
  </sources>
  <enforcement>NEVER use as sole source, ALWAYS note limitations explicitly</enforcement>
</tier>

<decision_rule priority="CRITICAL">
  <rule>Always prefer highest tier available. If only Tier 3-4 available, explicitly note limitation</rule>
  <enforcement>MANDATORY tier assessment for every source</enforcement>
</decision_rule>
</source_quality_hierarchy>

<source_credibility_assessment priority="CRITICAL">
<primary_questions priority="CRITICAL">
  <instruction>Ask for EVERY source without exception</instruction>
  
  <question_category name="authority" priority="CRITICAL">
    <question>Who is the author/organization?</question>
    <question>What are their credentials in this field?</question>
    <question>Is this their area of expertise?</question>
    <question>Are they cited by others in the field?</question>
    <enforcement>MUST establish author credibility before accepting claims</enforcement>
  </question_category>

  <question_category name="source_type_hierarchy" priority="HIGH">
    <hierarchy>
      <level priority="CRITICAL">Primary source (original research/direct evidence)</level>
      <level priority="HIGH">Secondary source (analysis/interpretation)</level>
      <level priority="MEDIUM">Tertiary source (encyclopedia/aggregator)</level>
      <level priority="LOW">Opinion/Editorial (clearly marked viewpoint)</level>
    </hierarchy>
    <enforcement>ALWAYS identify source type and prioritize accordingly</enforcement>
  </question_category>

  <question_category name="publication_quality" priority="HIGH">
    <quality_levels>
      <level priority="CRITICAL">Peer-reviewed journal article</level>
      <level priority="HIGH">Academic institution publication</level>
      <level priority="HIGH">Professional organization report</level>
      <level priority="MEDIUM">Reputable news outlet with fact-checking</level>
      <level priority="LOW">Blog/Personal website (evaluate carefully)</level>
    </quality_levels>
    <enforcement>MUST assess publication quality before accepting claims</enforcement>
  </question_category>

  <question_category name="recency_relevance" priority="MEDIUM">
    <question>When published/last updated?</question>
    <question>Is this current for the topic?</question>
    <question>Have there been major developments since?</question>
    <question>Does date matter for this claim?</question>
    <enforcement>VERIFY currency for time-sensitive topics</enforcement>
  </question_category>

  <question_category name="transparency" priority="HIGH">
    <question>Are sources and methods clear?</question>
    <question>Is raw data available?</question>
    <question>Are limitations acknowledged?</question>
    <question>Is uncertainty quantified?</question>
    <enforcement>REQUIRE transparency for scientific/technical claims</enforcement>
  </question_category>
</primary_questions>

<red_flags priority="CRITICAL">
<immediate_concerns priority="HIGH">
  <flag>No author or organization listed</flag>
  <flag>No date or "timeless" content</flag>
  <flag>No sources cited for factual claims</flag>
  <flag>Obvious spelling/grammar errors</flag>
  <flag>Sensationalist headlines</flag>
  <flag>Domain looks suspicious</flag>
  <flag>Vendor marketing content (especially product/service claims)</flag>
  <enforcement>INVESTIGATE further when any flags present</enforcement>
</immediate_concerns>

<disqualifying_factors priority="CRITICAL">
  <factor>Known disinformation source</factor>
  <factor>Extreme bias without disclosure</factor>
  <factor>Pure marketing material disguised as research</factor>
  <factor>Selling something related to claims</factor>
  <factor>Conspiracy theory promotion</factor>
  <factor>Hate speech or extremism</factor>
  <enforcement>IMMEDIATELY REJECT sources with these factors</enforcement>
</disqualifying_factors>
</red_flags>
</source_credibility_assessment>

<claim_evaluation_process priority="HIGH">
<evidence_quality_assessment priority="HIGH">
  <strong_evidence priority="HIGH">
    <criteria>Multiple independent sources agree</criteria>
    <criteria>Primary research with methodology</criteria>
    <criteria>Statistical significance shown</criteria>
    <criteria>Reproducible results</criteria>
    <enforcement>ACCEPT claims with strong evidence</enforcement>
  </strong_evidence>

  <weak_evidence priority="MEDIUM">
    <criteria>Single source only</criteria>
    <criteria>Anecdotal evidence</criteria>
    <criteria>No methodology provided</criteria>
    <criteria>Cherry-picked data</criteria>
    <enforcement>REQUIRE additional verification for weak evidence</enforcement>
  </weak_evidence>

  <insufficient_evidence priority="HIGH">
    <criteria>No supporting data</criteria>
    <criteria>Opinion presented as fact</criteria>
    <criteria>Correlation claimed as causation</criteria>
    <criteria>Extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence</criteria>
    <enforcement>REJECT claims with insufficient evidence</enforcement>
  </insufficient_evidence>
</evidence_quality_assessment>

<logical_fallacy_detection priority="MEDIUM">
  <fallacy>Appeal to authority (without relevant expertise)</fallacy>
  <fallacy>False dichotomy (only two options presented)</fallacy>
  <fallacy>Straw man arguments (misrepresenting opposition)</fallacy>
  <fallacy>Ad hominem attacks (attacking person, not argument)</fallacy>
  <fallacy>Confirmation bias (cherry-picking supporting evidence)</fallacy>
  <enforcement>IDENTIFY and NOTE fallacies when present</enforcement>
</logical_fallacy_detection>
</claim_evaluation_process>

<quick_evaluation_checklist priority="HIGH">
<instruction>For every source, quickly check all items</instruction>
<checklist priority="HIGH">
  <check>Author/organization identified?</check>
  <check>Expertise in this topic?</check>
  <check>Date recent enough?</check>
  <check>Sources cited?</check>
  <check>Bias disclosed?</check>
  <check>Methods explained?</check>
  <check>Limitations acknowledged?</check>
  <check>Other sources agree?</check>
  <check>Evidence matches claims?</check>
  <check>Free from marketing intent?</check>
  <check>Free from major red flags?</check>
  <check>What quality tier (1-4)?</check>
</checklist>

<scoring_guidelines priority="MEDIUM">
  <score range="10-12">Likely credible (Tier 1-2)</score>
  <score range="6-9">Evaluate carefully (Tier 2-3)</score>
  <score range="0-5">Probably not credible (Tier 4)</score>
  <enforcement>APPLY scoring consistently to all sources</enforcement>
</scoring_guidelines>
</quick_evaluation_checklist>

<marketing_content_protocol priority="HIGH">
<identification priority="HIGH">
  <obvious_marketing>Product pages, sales brochures, vendor websites</obvious_marketing>
  <disguised_marketing>White papers, "research reports," case studies</disguised_marketing>
  <subtle_marketing>Sponsored content, native advertising, paid placements</subtle_marketing>
  <academic_looking_marketing>Vendor-funded studies without disclosure</academic_looking_marketing>
  <enforcement>ALWAYS identify marketing intent before evaluation</enforcement>
</identification>

<handling_protocol priority="CRITICAL">
  <rule>NEVER use as primary source for comparative claims</rule>
  <rule>CAN use for: Technical specifications, feature lists</rule>
  <rule>ALWAYS verify: Any performance claims independently</rule>
  <rule>LOOK for: Independent reviews, third-party testing</rule>
  <enforcement>MANDATORY protocol for all marketing content</enforcement>
</handling_protocol>

<red_flag_phrases priority="MEDIUM">
  <phrase>"Industry-leading"</phrase>
  <phrase>"Revolutionary breakthrough"</phrase>
  <phrase>"The only solution that..."</phrase>
  <phrase>"Studies show" (without citation)</phrase>
  <phrase>"Customers report" (without data)</phrase>
  <enforcement>FLAG sources using these phrases for additional scrutiny</enforcement>
</red_flag_phrases>

<marketing_encounter_procedure priority="HIGH">
  <step>Mark source as vendor/marketing</step>
  <step>Extract only factual specifications</step>
  <step>Seek independent verification</step>
  <step>Note potential bias in research transparency</step>
  <step>NEVER present marketing claims as verified facts</step>
</marketing_encounter_procedure>
</marketing_content_protocol>

<operational_guidelines priority="HIGH">
<final_reminders priority="MEDIUM">
  <reminder>No source is perfect - Even good sources have limitations</reminder>
  <reminder>Triangulate - Never rely on single source for important claims</reminder>
  <reminder>Document doubts - If unsure, say so in the note</reminder>
  <reminder>Update regularly - Knowledge evolves, so should notes</reminder>
  <reminder>Prefer primary - Get as close to original source as possible</reminder>
  <reminder>Check yourself - Are your own biases affecting evaluation?</reminder>
  <reminder>Quality over quantity - One Tier 1 source beats five Tier 4 sources</reminder>
</final_reminders>

<uncertainty_protocol priority="HIGH">
  <condition>If you cannot determine credibility</condition>
  <action>Mark as "uncertain pending verification"</action>
  <action>Document what would be needed to verify</action>
  <action>Search for additional sources</action>
  <action>Consider reaching out to experts</action>
  <action>Default to transparency about limitations</action>
  <principle>It's better to admit uncertainty than to present dubious claims as facts</principle>
  <enforcement>ALWAYS prioritize transparency over false confidence</enforcement>
</uncertainty_protocol>
</operational_guidelines>

<mandatory_compliance priority="CRITICAL">
<core_requirements priority="CRITICAL">
  <requirement>MUST assess every source using tier hierarchy</requirement>
  <requirement>MUST apply credibility assessment questions to all sources</requirement>
  <requirement>MUST identify and flag marketing content</requirement>
  <requirement>MUST document limitations and uncertainties</requirement>
  <requirement>MUST prioritize higher-tier sources</requirement>
  <requirement>NEVER accept claims without evidence evaluation</requirement>
</core_requirements>
</mandatory_compliance>
EOF < /dev/null