Research

Research

Overview

Investigate the real-world facts a story depends on and keep them in research/ notes: the question, a search plan, the findings with a citation for each, how confident the finding is, and the chapters that rely on them. Research is active work, not only a ledger: form precise questions, go to primary sources where they exist, interview people and visit places, and record what was found in a form a later fact-check can retrace.

The CLI tracks each note's status (open, verified, disputed), its used-in chapters, and the optional accuracy, confidence, method, risk, and reviewed-by fields. It checks the chapter links, warns when a final chapter still rests on research that is open or disputed, and warns when a risky note reaches a final chapter without a qualified reviewer.

Prerequisites

A story project with story.md in the root. The research/ folder and its registry are created by the first story add research.

When to Use

• A chapter depends on history, science, law, medicine, a trade, a real place, or any detail a knowledgeable reader could check
• The user asks whether something is accurate
• Before marking a chapter final in historical, technical, or contemporary fiction
• NOT for invented world facts (use worldbuilding) or story-internal continuity (use revision-continuity)

Workflow

1. Open a note

story add research 'Tidal bore timing' --used-in chapter-03 \
  --accuracy must-be-accurate --method fact --confidence low

Fill the note's ## Question with what the story needs to get right, in one or two sentences. Set the fields that describe the note:

• accuracy - how closely the prose must match reality: must-be-accurate (a checkable real fact the plot or setting relies on), blended (real facts deliberately mixed with invention), or invented (a made-up fact recorded here for consistency). Invented notes need no sources and never trigger the open-research warning.
• method - where the knowledge comes from: fact (desk research), reading (a book or paper read for background), interview, site-visit, or expert-review.
• confidence - high, medium, or low; how sure the current findings are. Start at low and raise it as sources agree.
• risk - a list, when getting it wrong could harm a reader, a real person, or the author: legal, medical, weapons, safety, cultural, defamation, technical. Pass --risk once per value.

2. Plan the investigation

1. Break the question into the specific things the prose asserts or implies ("Could she walk from the station to the docks in 20 minutes in 1953?" rather than "1950s Liverpool").
2. Write a short ## Search Plan in the note: the terms to search, the archives, records, or reference works to try, and the people who would know. Mark which would be primary sources (records, first-hand accounts, official data, the place itself) and which secondary.
3. Decide what "enough" looks like: one authoritative primary source, or two independent secondary sources that agree.

3. Research

1. Use the research tools available in the session (web search or fetch, documents the user provides). If none are available, give the user the search plan and ask them to supply sources.
2. Record each finding under ## Findings with its citation beside it: author or institution, title, date, and the page, section, or URL. When a finding rests on exact wording, quote it and give the page or URL, so the claim can be retraced without repeating the search. Add every source to the sources frontmatter list, one full citation or URL per entry, with --source on story add or by editing the file.
3. Set confidence from the evidence: high for a primary source or independent agreement, medium for one good secondary source, low for anything recalled, inferred, or from a single weak source.
4. Never present unverified knowledge as verified. A fact recalled without a source stays status: open. Only set status: verified when every finding the chapters rely on has a source. Set status: disputed when sources disagree, and record both sides.
5. For interviews and site visits, prepare questions and consent first and record notes in the note body; see references/interviews-and-site-visits.md.

4. Flag risk; never advise

Notes with any risk value need a qualified human reviewer (a lawyer, clinician, weapons or safety specialist, cultural reader, or subject engineer, as fits) before the chapters that use them are final. Record the reviewer in reviewed-by as a name or role once they have read the passage. reviewed-by is a list with no story add flag; edit the note's frontmatter by hand:

reviewed-by:
  - "Dr A. Patel, A&E consultant"

Collect facts and flag concerns, but never give legal, medical, or safety advice yourself, and never treat your own research as the review. Portrayals of real, living people carry defamation risk; route those, and sensitivity or authenticity reads, through the editorial-review skill.