Investigative Research

---
name: investigative-research
description: "A specialized skill for the researcher and fact-checker agents covering investigative research. Provides primary/secondary source collection, source reliability assessment, data triangulation, and bias analysis methodologies. Use for 'research,' 'fact-checking,' 'source verification,' 'investigative techniques,' and similar topics."
---

# Investigative Research — Investigative Research Methodology

Specialized knowledge used by the researcher and fact-checker agents when investigating and verifying materials for documentaries.

## Why Systematic Research Is Needed

A documentary's credibility depends on the **depth and accuracy of its research**. A single incorrect statistic can undermine the entire program's trust. There is a fundamental difference between "casually searching and using" versus "verifying at investigative journalism standards."

## Source Collection Hierarchy: PRIMA Framework

| Tier | Description | Reliability | Example |
|------|-------------|-------------|---------|
| **P**rimary | Primary sources — original data, direct interviews | Highest | Census raw data, firsthand testimony |
| **R**efereed | Peer-reviewed academic sources | High | Academic papers, meta-analyses |
| **I**nstitutional | Reports published by institutions | Medium-High | WHO reports, central bank statistics |
| **M**edia | Verified news coverage | Medium | Major news outlet articles, reportage |
| **A**necdotal | Anecdotes, personal experiences | Low | Social media, blogs, community posts |

### Source Collection Rules

1. **Minimum 3 independent sources**: Cross-confirm key facts from 3 different sources
2. **Primary sources first**: Whenever possible, verify original data or reports directly
3. **Recency**: Statistics within the last 3 years; for fast-changing fields, within 1 year
4. **Collect opposing views**: Intentionally collect materials from opposing positions

## Source Reliability Assessment: CRAAP Test

| Criterion | Question | Weight |
|-----------|----------|--------|
| **C**urrency | When was it published? Updated? | 20% |
| **R**elevance | Is it directly related to the topic? | 15% |
| **A**uthority | What are the author/institution's expertise and credentials? | 25% |
| **A**ccuracy | Does it match other sources? Is there evidence? | 25% |
| **P**urpose | Information? Persuasion? Advertising? Political purpose? | 15% |

### Reliability Grades

| Score | Grade | Usability |
|-------|-------|-----------|
| 80-100 | A (Highly Reliable) | Can be used as core fact |
| 60-79 | B (Reliable) | Use as supporting material, cross-check recommended |
| 40-59 | C (Caution) | Reference only, cross-check required |
| 20-39 | D (Suspect) | Do not use directly, cite only as a perspective |
| 0-19 | F (Disqualified) | Do not use |

## Data Triangulation

### 3 Verification Axes

```
         Method Triangulation
        (Different research methods)
              ^
             / \
            /   \
           /     \
  Data Triangulation --- Investigator Triangulation
  (Different data sources)  (Different analysts)
```

| Type | Method | Example |
|------|--------|---------|
| **Data Triangulation** | Confirm the same fact from different sources | Government statistics + academic paper + field observation |
| **Method Triangulation** | Verify the same phenomenon with different methods | Interview + statistical analysis + literature review |
| **Perspective Triangulation** | Confirm from different stakeholders' viewpoints | Government + NGO + affected parties |

## Bias Analysis Checklist

| Bias Type | Detection Question | Countermeasure |
|-----------|-------------------|----------------|
| **Confirmation Bias** | Are we only collecting data that supports our desired conclusion? | Intentionally search for counter-evidence |
| **Survivorship Bias** | Are we only looking at success stories? What about failures? | Investigate failure cases with equal weight |
| **Selection Bias** | Are we only representing a specific group? | Include materials from diverse demographic groups |
| **Recency Bias** | Are we overvaluing recent events? | Include historical context |
| **Framing Bias** | Are we defining the problem in only one way? | Try redefining with a different frame |

## Research Documentation Standard

### Source Card Format

```
## Source #[Number]

- **Title**: [Material title]
- **Author/Institution**: [Name]
- **Publication Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
- **Type**: [PRIMA tier]
- **URL/DOI**: [Access path]
- **CRAAP Score**: [Score/100]
- **Key Citation**: "[Direct quote — quotation marks required]"
- **Summary**: [1-2 sentence key content]
- **Related Section**: [Which part of the documentary treatment will use this]
- **Cross-Check**: [Does it match other sources? Compare with Source #XX]
```

## Sensitive Topic Research Guide

### Legal/Ethical Checklist

- [ ] Is there no potential violation of personal data protection laws?
- [ ] Have facts been verified for any content that could constitute defamation?
- [ ] Have special protection standards been applied for information involving minors?
- [ ] Have quoted statements not been distorted by being taken out of context?
- [ ] Are appropriate warnings included for trauma-related content?