Signal Flags¶
Every finding produced by a specialist is tagged with two attributes: signal strength and priority level.
Signal Strength¶
Reflects how well-established a finding is.
| Flag | Color | Meaning | When to use |
|---|---|---|---|
confirmed |
Green | Directly observed or verified against a primary source | robots.txt read directly, schema validated at validator.schema.org, Bing site: check run live |
unconfirmed |
Amber | Inferred or reported — needs verification | Competitor behavior inferred from citations, platform behavior reported not tested |
emerging |
Red | Pattern observed in limited cases — not yet a consistent signal | New platform behavior seen in one or two instances, not yet documented across sessions |
Source Credibility¶
Independent of signal strength, every finding also carries a credibility tier — how trustworthy the underlying source is. Strength is "how sure are we it's true"; credibility is "how good is the source." A finding can be confirmed from a weak source or unconfirmed from a strong one, so both are stated: [finding] — [strength] · [tier] · [priority].
| Tier | Source type |
|---|---|
T1 |
Official platform documentation / first-party announcements |
T2 |
Direct, reproducible observation (live query, robots.txt, schema validator, Bing site:) |
T3 |
Reputable empirical study with stated sample and date |
T4 |
Vendor / practitioner analysis — directional |
T5 |
Anecdote / community signal |
Weighting rule: when sources conflict, the higher tier governs; a T4/T5 claim is never reported as fact without a T1–T3 corroborator.
Tool fidelity: the researcher's own page fetch (HTML→markdown) strips <script> JSON-LD, so a "no schema" result from its own read is non-evidence — unconfirmed until verified at validator.schema.org or the Google Rich Results Test. Full detail in references/source-credibility.md.
Priority Level¶
Reflects urgency and impact on the client's AI visibility.
| Level | Color | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
critical |
Purple | Blocks citation capability entirely — fix before anything else |
high |
Red | Significant impact on retrieval — high effort justified |
medium |
Amber | Notable gap — address after critical and high |
low |
Gray | Worth noting, low urgency — useful for backlog |
How They Work Together¶
A finding tagged confirmed · critical is a verified blocker — act on it immediately.
A finding tagged unconfirmed · high is worth investigating further before acting — the impact is real if confirmed, but you need verification first.
A finding tagged emerging · medium is a trend to watch — not urgent enough to redirect resources, but worth tracking across future sessions.
Investigator Confidence¶
Separate from signal strength and source credibility, findings also carry an investigator confidence level — how certain the investigator is about the implication or recommendation that follows from the evidence.
| Level | Meaning |
|---|---|
High |
Implication is unambiguous; inline tags are sufficient |
Moderate |
A plausible alternative interpretation exists; consequence statement required |
Low |
Evidence supports multiple interpretations; directional only; primary investigation needed before acting |
When confidence is Moderate or Low, the finding appends a consequence statement:
[finding] — [strength] · [tier] · [priority] — Confidence: [level] — [what changes if the alternative is correct]
High-confidence findings do not require the suffix. Full format and examples in references/source-credibility.md → Investigator Confidence.
Session Close Rule¶
A session that produces findings must close with two mandatory elements before the conversation ends:
- Research Ledger — confirmed findings, unconfirmed inferences, and what would change the conclusion (format in
references/source-credibility.md→ Research Ledger) - Next Research Move — one specific action, naming the exact query, tool, or check, and what it will resolve
Neither is optional. A session that ends without surfacing its uncertainty and naming the next move has not completed its investigation — it has paused it without a handoff.
In the Research Brief¶
The Priority Matrix sorts all findings by priority level (critical → low) regardless of domain. This gives you a single ranked action list across the entire research session.