Source handling:
How should I treat conflicting sources?
Always ensure that both sides begin by have an even playing field or an equal opportunity to state their data, arguments and facts. Upon analysis of this, present the conflict. Weigh the evidence a state your judgement.
This example "Example: "Source A claims X (based on a single industry survey). Source B disputes X (based on three peer-reviewed studies). The stronger evidence supports B, though A's concern about [specific point] remains valid."" is correct in approach.

Should I prioritize primary sources (original studies, official documents) over secondary (journalism, summaries)? Or a mix?
Always give high importance to primary sources. Primary sources are always preferred.

How do you want me to handle anonymous or unverifiable sources?
Corroboration rule. An anonymous claim is usable only if a named, verifiable source independently confirms it. Otherwise: "This claim exists but could not be verified — treat with caution." This protects the report's credibility.
On top of this i would like for you to confirm what would constitute an anonymous and unverifiable source and how they would be categorized as such.


Scope and depth:
Should reports be encyclopedic (cover everything, moderate depth) or focused (fewer angles, maximum depth)?
I often times find myself not knowing everything about a particular topic i am researching and come to find that there are many overarching or branching topics related to the topic i am researching and that these are sometimes more important than the topic i am researching and should considered with importance.
This can come of as fear of missing out but in my experience what you don't know comes to hurt you in the long run.
So to me a cover everything approach seems suiting but i would like to get your input on my thoughts.

Do you want me to chase tangents that seem relevant, or stay strictly on-brief?
Explore but isolate. Tangents are where interesting discoveries hide. But they shouldn't blur the main thread. Use clearly marked subsections: "Related Finding: [tangent]" or a dedicated "Adjacencies" section. The reader can skip or dive in.
This seems fair.

Is there a preferred report length range, or does the topic dictate it?
Topic dictates, always with an executive summary. A 2,000-word topic forced to 10,000 words is padding. A 10,000-word topic compressed to 2,000 is incomplete. Let the topic breathe, but always lead with a summary so readers can decide their own depth. Never ever deliberately cut short a report. If the topic demands it, i truly don't mind if the report length is infinite.

Formatting:
Inline citations vs. footnotes vs. end-of-section bibliography — what reads best to you?
I agree with a inline citations with a sources section at the end. Inline means the reader sees evidence at the point of the claim — no flipping back and forth. A sources section at the end provides the full URL/date/title for verification. This is how the best research reports (think: RAND, Brookings) handle it.

Do you want a table of contents for longer reports?
I agree with table of contents always for reports over ~2,000 words. Navigation matters. A clickable (or scannable) ToC lets readers jump to what they care about. Zero cost to add, significant usability gain.

Should I include an executive summary / TL;DR at the top?
Always, even for shorter reports. Even a 3-bullet summary at the top changes how useful a report is. Decision-makers may never read past it. Researchers will use it to prioritize sections. It forces me (the writer) to know what the point actually is.

What "exhaustive" means to you:

Does it mean covering every angle I can find? Or does it mean going deep on the angles that matter most?
To reiterate my point explained at scope and depth section. I fear, not covering every angle would leave me vulnerable in my understanding of sometimes which might at another point in time come to be useful or important. I would first like to know how would you or rather what is the best standard that is followed by the best researchers in terms of the evaluation grounds for exploring each and every angles? Please expand on this.

Should I include historical context and timeline, or focus on the current state?
Enough history to understand now. Not a textbook timeline. Just enough to answer "how did we get here?" if it matters to understanding the current landscape. If history isn't relevant, skip it.

How much methodology detail do you want?
Always include a brief methodology note. Even a short section: "Sources consulted: web search across X queries, Y pages fetched, Z primary sources. Limitations: [specific gaps]." This is what separates a research report from an opinion piece. It allows the reader to assess how you arrived at conclusions, which is what makes it dependable. This is good.

Ongoing research:
Should I note follow-up questions or areas where more research would help?
Include a "Gaps and Open Questions" section. No research report is the final word. Noting what's still unknown or what would benefit from deeper investigation is honest and useful. It tells the reader "this is what I could verify, and here's what would need a domain expert or primary research."

Do you want versioned updates if new information emerges on a topic you've asked about?
Versioned with changelog. If a report gets revisited, the reader should know what changed and why. "v1.1 — added findings from [new source], corrected claim about X" builds trust over time.


Quality control:
Should I flag my own confidence level per section?
Always, but lightweight. A simple notation per section: ✅ Strong evidence (multiple independent sources) → 🟡 Moderate evidence (limited sources, some gaps) → 🔴 Weak evidence (single source, speculative, or actively disputed). This lets the reader instantly calibrate trust.

Do you want me to explicitly state what I couldn't find or verify?
Separate section titled "Limitations and Gaps." This is the fool-proofing. If I searched for X and found nothing, the reader deserves to know that absence of evidence might mean evidence of absence — or it might mean I hit a wall. Transparency here is non-negotiable for a dependable report.

Should I include a "weaknesses of this report" section?
Include. This is the meta-level honesty that makes everything else credible. "This report relied heavily on English-language sources." "Academic literature on this topic is sparse." "The most recent data available is from 2023." Knowing the report's blind spots is as valuable as knowing its findings.

Also, another important matter that i need to specify is that the report should not be generated by relying of training data of the llm that is active. This is extremely dangerous for the integrity of the report because sometimes the llm models that are being used some times can have knowledge cutoff dates that are over a year old. Tell me all the necessary steps that can be taken to avoid this from happening and ensure that all research conducted is upto date.