AI search engines with citations: research with verifiable sources

Answer this question: [question].

Conditions:
- Search the web, don't answer from memory. For every factual
  claim, state the source it came from.
- If you can't find a source for a claim, say so explicitly
  as “no source: [claim]” instead of stating it as fact.
- For every number, state the year it refers to and who
  measured it.
- Where sources disagree, show both numbers side by side
  and don't try to average them.
- At the end, list what you weren't able to find out about
  this question.

Answer in bullet points, not an essay.

Question: [specific factual question].

Context: I'm a [role] and I need this to decide whether
[specific decision]. I'm deciding within [a week / a month].

What sources I want:
- primarily [studies / official statistics / vendor documentation /
  user experiences from discussions]
- time period: [only sources from year … onward], flag older ones
  explicitly
- geography: [country / EU / global], for data from elsewhere state
  where it's from

What sources I don't want: content whose author sells the product,
unless you label it as marketing; roundup articles that just
repeat another source — in that case, find the original.

Answer format: 5-7 bullet points, each with a source and year.
At the end add a “What's disputed” paragraph with claims where
sources disagree.

[Question and context per the previous prompt.]

I want the output as a table with these columns:
claim | number or figure | source (name + year) | source type
(primary study / official statistic / news article /
marketing material) | how confident you are (high/medium/low)

Rules:
- one row = one claim, no run-on sentences
- fill in the "source type" column honestly; a vendor blog
  is not a study
- where confidence is low, explain why in the last column
- don't list a claim you don't have a link for

Below the table, write 3 follow-up questions I should ask
to get a complete picture.

In your previous answer, for the claim [short quote of the claim]
you referenced source [number or name].

Expand on it:
- what exactly that study or report measured (variable, definition)
- how large the sample was and how it was selected
- what period and country it covers
- who commissioned and paid for the research
- what limitations the authors themselves state
- whether more recent work confirms or contradicts it

Where you can't find this information in the source, write
“not stated in the source” — don't infer it from general
knowledge about similar research.

From your previous answer, list a table of all verifiable claims:
numbers, shares, years, names, references to other research.

Columns: claim | the link you cited for it | exactly what I should
find on that page to confirm it | how much the overall answer
depends on it (key / supporting)

Sort from key to supporting. Don't assert whether it's true —
just give me a list of what to look for on those pages.

Here's my research conversation. Pull out a note entry for the
claims I've verified: [list the numbers or short quotes of the
verified claims].

For each one, make a block with:
- the claim in one neutrally worded sentence
- exact source citation: author or institution, title, year, link
- what I'll use it for in [paper / report / decision], one sentence
- limitations: sample, period, country — what I need to mention

Markdown format, so I can drop it into my notes. Don't add
anything that wasn't in the conversation.

I'm deciding between [option A], [option B], and [option C]
for [specific situation: who will use it, for what, at what scale].

Don't compare yet. First suggest 8 criteria I should base my
decision on, specifically for my situation. For each criterion:
- why it matters in my case
- how you'd tell an option holds up on it (exactly what to check)
- whether it's a deciding criterion or just nice to have

Separately, list 3 criteria that people in my situation usually
forget about and later regret it.

Compare [option A], [option B], and [option C] on these criteria:
[criterion 1], [criterion 2], [criterion 3], [criterion 4],
[criterion 5].

Context: [who, for what, at what scale].

Output as a table: criteria in rows, options in columns.
Each cell gets a short sentence and a link to the source it's from.

Rules:
- where you can't find the information, write "not found" —
  don't fill in a guess
- distinguish what the vendor claims from what independent
  sources say; label vendor claims as such
- don't state which option is best overall

Below the table, add: where the options actually differ (not
where they're the same), and for each one, a situation where
it's clearly the best choice.

In the previous comparison, [option A] appears to come out on top.

Try it in reverse: find the strongest arguments FOR [option B]
and AGAINST [option A]. Look for specific documented experiences,
not theoretical downsides.

I'm especially interested in:
- what people who've actually used [option A] for more than a
  year complain about
- what situation [option A] turns out to be a bad choice in
- what's hard or expensive to change about [option A] if I
  decide to switch later

Cite a source for each point. Where these are individual
complaints from discussion threads, say so — don't turn one
person's experience into a trend.

I'm tracking the topic [topic] because of [reason: field,
competitors, legislation, a tool we use].

Find out what's changed on this topic since [date of the last
check-in query]. I'm interested in:
- new studies, reports, or official data
- changes in legislation or rules relevant to the topic
- significant moves by major players (new products, discontinuations,
  acquisitions)
- shifts in opinion: what used to be claimed and is now disputed

For each item: what happened, exactly when, the source, and in
one sentence, what it means for [my situation].

Where you found nothing substantial since the stated date, say
so — don't invent changes just to make the list look full.

I'm attaching two research runs on the same topic [topic]:
the first from [date], the second from [date].

[paste the first research run]

---

[paste the second research run]

Compare them and return:
1. What changed substantively: new numbers, new facts, things
   that stopped being true.
2. Claims that are the same in both, backed by the same sources —
   treat those as most reliable.
3. Claims that are in both but with different numbers or sources —
   note what might explain the difference.
4. What was in the first and completely disappeared from the
   second, and vice versa.

Don't speculate about the reasons for changes, just show what's
different.