Deep Research

Create high-fidelity research reports with strict format control, evidence mapping, source governance, and multi-pass synthesis.

Architecture: Lead Agent + Subagents

Lead Agent (coordinator — minimizes raw search context)
  |
  P0: Environment + source policy setup
  |
  P1: Research Task Board (roles, queries, parallel groups)
  |
  Dispatch ──→ Subagent A ──→ writes task-a.md ──┐
           ──→ Subagent B ──→ writes task-b.md ──┤ (parallel)
           ──→ Subagent C ──→ writes task-c.md ──┘
  |                                               |
  |     research-notes/  <────────────────────────┘
  |
  P2: Build citation registry with source_type + as_of + authority
  P3: Evidence-mapped outline with counter-claim flags
  P4: Draft from notes (never from raw search results)
  P5: Counter-review (claims, confidence, alternatives)
  P6: Verify (every [n] in registry, traceability check)
  P7: Polish → final report with confidence markers

Context efficiency: Subagents' raw search results stay in their context and are discarded. Lead agent sees only distilled notes (~60-70% context reduction).

Mode Selection

Determine the research mode before starting:

Dimension	Options
Topic Mode	Enterprise Research (company/corporation) OR General Research (industry/policy/tech)
Depth Mode	Standard (5-6 tasks, 3000-8000 words) OR Lightweight (3-4 tasks, 2000-4000 words)

• Enterprise Research Mode: Six-dimension data collection with structured analysis frameworks (SWOT, risk matrix, competitive barrier quantification)
• General Research Mode: Standard P0-P7 research pipeline with source governance
• Depth Selection: Lightweight for single entity/concept < 30 words; Standard for multi-entity comparison or "深入"/"comprehensive" requests

Source Governance (V6)

Source Accessibility Classification

CRITICAL RULE: Every source must be classified by accessibility:

Accessibility	Definition	Examples	Usage Rule
public	Available to any external researcher without authentication	Public websites, news articles, WHOIS (without privacy), academic papers	✅ Always allowed
semi-public	Requires registration or limited access	LinkedIn profiles, Crunchbase basic, industry reports (free tier)	✅ Allowed with disclosure
exclusive-user-provided	User's paid subscriptions, private APIs, proprietary databases	Crunchbase Pro, PitchBook, private data feeds, internal databases	✅ ALLOWED for third-party research
private-user-owned	User's own accounts when researching themselves	User's registrar for user's own company, user's bank for user's own finances	❌ FORBIDDEN - circular verification

⚠️ CIRCULAR VERIFICATION BAN: You must NOT:

• Use user's private data to "discover" what they already know about themselves
• Research user's own company by accessing user's private accounts
• Present user's private knowledge as "research findings"

✅ EXCLUSIVE INFORMATION ADVANTAGE: You SHOULD:

• Use user's Crunchbase Pro to research competitors
• Use user's proprietary databases for market research
• Use user's private APIs for investment analysis
• Leverage any exclusive source user provides for third-party research

Source Type Labels

Every source MUST also be tagged with:

Label	Definition	Examples
official	Primary source, official documentation	Company SEC filings, government reports, official blog
academic	Peer-reviewed research	Journal articles, conference papers, dissertations
secondary-industry	Professional analysis	Industry reports, analyst coverage, trade publications
journalism	News reporting	Reputable media outlets, investigative journalism
community	User-generated content	Forums, reviews, social media, Q&A sites
other	Uncategorized or mixed	Aggregators, unverified sources

Quality Gates:

• Standard mode: ≥30% official sources in final approved set
• Lightweight mode: ≥20% official sources
• Maximum single-source share: ≤25% (Standard), ≤30% (Lightweight)
• Minimum unique domains: 5 (Standard), 3 (Lightweight)

AS_OF Date Policy

Set AS_OF date explicitly at P0. For all time-sensitive claims:

• Include source publication date with every citation
• Downgrade confidence if source is older than relevant horizon
• Flag stale sources in registry (studies >3 years, news >6 months for fast-moving topics)

P0: Environment & Policy Setup

Check capabilities before starting:

Check	Requirement	Impact if Missing
web_search available	Required	Stop - cannot proceed
web_fetch available	Required for DEEP tasks	SCAN-only mode
Subagent dispatch	Preferred	Degrade to sequential
Filesystem writable	Required	In-memory notes only

Set policy variables:

• AS_OF: Today's date (YYYY-MM-DD) - mandatory for timed topics
• MODE: Standard (default) or Lightweight
• SOURCE_TYPE_POLICY: Enforce official/academic/secondary/journalism/community/other labels
• COUNTER_REVIEW_PLAN: What opposing interpretation to test

Report: [P0 complete] Subagent: {yes/no}. Mode: {standard/lightweight}. AS_OF: {YYYY-MM-DD}.

When researching a specific company/enterprise, follow this specialized workflow that ensures six-dimension coverage, quantified analysis frameworks, and three-level quality control.

Enterprise Workflow Overview

Enterprise Research Progress:
- [ ] E1: Intake — confirm company entity, research depth, format contract
- [ ] E2: Six-dimension data collection (parallel where possible)
  - [ ] D1: Company fundamentals (entity, founding, funding, ownership)
  - [ ] D2: Business & products (segments, products, revenue structure)
  - [ ] D3: Competitive position (industry rank, competitors, barriers)
  - [ ] D4: Financial & operations (3-year financials, efficiency metrics)
  - [ ] D5: Recent developments (6-month events, strategic signals)
  - [ ] D6: Internal/proprietary sources (or note limitation)
- [ ] E3: Structured analysis frameworks
  - [ ] SWOT analysis (evidence-backed, 4 quadrants × 3-5 entries)
  - [ ] Competitive barrier quantification (7 dimensions, weighted score)
  - [ ] Risk matrix (8 categories, probability × impact)
  - [ ] Comprehensive scorecard (6 dimensions, weighted total)
- [ ] E4: L1/L2/L3 quality checks at each stage transition
- [ ] E5: Draft report using 7-chapter enterprise template
- [ ] E6: Multi-pass drafting + UNION merge (same as general Step 6-7)
- [ ] E7: Present draft for human review and iterate

P1: Research Task Board

Decompose the research question into 4-6 investigation tasks (Standard) or 3-4 tasks (Lightweight).

Each task assignment includes:

• Expert Role: Specialist persona (e.g., "Policy Historian", "Ecosystem Mapper")
• Objective: One-sentence investigation goal
• Queries: 2-3 pre-planned search queries
• Depth: DEEP (fetch 2-3 full articles) or SCAN (snippets sufficient)
• Output: Path to research notes file
• Parallel Group: Group A (independent) or Group B (depends on Group A)

Task Decomposition Rules

1. Each task covers one coherent sub-topic a specialist would own
2. Group A tasks must be independent and source-diverse
3. Max 3 tasks per parallel group (concurrency limit)
4. Every task must flag time-sensitive claims and expected citation aging risk

Enterprise Research Integration

When in Enterprise Research Mode, task board maps to six dimensions:

• Task A: Company fundamentals (entity, founding, funding, ownership)
• Task B: Business & products (segments, products, revenue structure)
• Task C: Competitive position (industry rank, competitors, barriers)
• Task D: Financial & operations (3-year financials, efficiency metrics)
• Task E: Recent developments (6-month events, strategic signals)
• Task F: Internal/proprietary sources (or document limitation)

Report: [P1 complete] {N} tasks in {M} groups. Dispatching Group A.

---

Enterprise Research Mode (Specialized Pipeline)

When researching a specific company/enterprise, follow this specialized workflow that ensures six-dimension coverage, quantified analysis frameworks, and three-level quality control.

E1: Intake

Same as P0/P1 above, plus:

• Confirm the exact legal entity being researched (parent vs subsidiary)
• Select research depth: Quick scan (3-5 pages) / Standard (10-20 pages) / Deep (20-40 pages)
• Identify any specific comparison targets (benchmark companies)

P2: Dispatch + Investigate

Subagents execute tasks using references/subagent_prompt.md and output to references/research_notes_format.md.

With Subagents (Claude Code / Cowork / DeerFlow)

1. Dispatch Group A tasks in parallel (max 3 concurrent)
2. Each subagent searches, fetches, and tags source types
3. Every source line includes Source-Type and As Of
4. Wait for Group A completion
5. Dispatch Group B (can read Group A notes)

Subagent Output Requirements

Each task-{id}.md must contain:

• Sources section: URLs from actual search results with Source-Type, As Of, Authority (1-10)
• Findings section: Max 10 one-sentence facts with source numbers
• Deep Read Notes (DEEP tasks): 2-3 sources read in full with key data/insights
• Gaps section: What was searched but NOT found, alternative interpretations

Without Subagents (Degraded Mode)

Lead agent executes tasks sequentially, acting as each specialist. Raw search results are discarded after writing notes.

Enterprise Research: Six-Dimension Collection

Follow references/enterprise_research_methodology.md for:

• Detailed collection workflow per dimension (query strategies, data fields, validation)
• Data source priority matrix (P0-P3 ranking)
• Cross-validation rules (min sources, max deviation thresholds)

Key principles:

• Evidence-driven: every conclusion must trace to a citable source
• Multi-source validation: key data requires ≥2 independent sources
• Restrained judgment: mark speculation explicitly, avoid unsubstantiated claims
• Structured presentation: complex information via tables, lists, hierarchies

Run L1 quality check after completing each dimension (see enterprise_quality_checklist.md).

Status per task: [P2 task-{id} complete] {N} sources, {M} findings. Status all: [P2 complete] {N} tasks done, {M} total sources. Building registry.

E3: Structured Analysis Frameworks

Apply frameworks from references/enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md in order:

1. SWOT analysis — each entry with evidence + source + impact assessment
2. Competitive barrier quantification — 7 dimensions with weighted scoring → A+/A/B+/B/C+/C rating
3. Risk matrix — 8 mandatory categories, probability × impact → Red/Yellow/Green
4. Comprehensive scorecard — 6-dimension weighted total → X/10

Run L2 quality check after analysis is complete.

E4: Quality Control

Three-level checks from references/enterprise_quality_checklist.md:

• L1 (Data): Source count, attribution, cross-validation, timeliness
• L2 (Analysis): SWOT completeness, risk coverage, barrier scoring, conclusion support
• L3 (Document): Structure compliance, format consistency, readability, appendices

E5: Draft Using Enterprise Template

Use the 7-chapter enterprise report template from enterprise_quality_checklist.md:

1. Company Overview
2. Business & Product Structure
3. Market & Competitive Position
4. Financial & Operations Analysis
5. Risks & Concerns
6. Recent Developments
7. Comprehensive Assessment & Conclusion

Plus appendices: Data Source Index, Glossary, Disclaimer.

E3-E7: Enterprise Analysis, Drafting, and Review

• E3: Structured Analysis — Apply frameworks from references/enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md
• E4: Quality Control — Run L1/L2/L3 checks per references/enterprise_quality_checklist.md
• E5: Draft — Use 7-chapter enterprise template
• E6-E7: Multi-Pass Drafting and Review — Same as P4-P7 below

---

P3: Citation Registry + Source Governance

Lead agent reads all task notes and builds unified registry.

Registry Process

1. Read every task file's ## Sources section
2. Merge all sources, deduplicate by URL
3. Assign sequential [n] numbers by first appearance
4. Tag: source_type, as_of date, authority score (1-10), task id
5. Apply quality gates:
   • Standard: ≥12 approved sources, ≥5 unique domains, ≥30% official
   • Lightweight: ≥6 approved sources, ≥3 unique domains, ≥20% official
   • Max single-source share: ≤25% (Standard), ≤30% (Lightweight)
6. Drop sources below threshold and list them explicitly

Registry Output Format

CITATION REGISTRY

Approved:
[1] Author/Org — Title | URL | Source-Type: official | Accessibility: public | Date: 2026-03-01 | Auth: 8 | task-a
[2] ...

Dropped:
x Source | URL | Source-Type: community | Accessibility: privileged | Auth: 3 | Reason: PRIVILEGED SOURCE - NOT ALLOWED

Stats: {approved}/{total}, {N} domains, official_share {xx}%
Privileged sources rejected: {N}

Critical rule: These [n] are FINAL. P5 may only cite from Approved list. Dropped sources never reappear.

Circular verification handling: When researching the user's own company/assets, if you discover data in user's private accounts (e.g., user's domain registrar showing they own domains), you MUST:

1. Reject it from the registry (user already knows this)
2. Note it as "CIRCULAR - USER ALREADY KNOWS" in Dropped
3. Search for equivalent PUBLIC sources (e.g., public WHOIS, news articles)
4. Report from external investigator perspective only

Exclusive source handling: When user EXPLICITLY PROVIDES their paid subscriptions or private APIs for third-party research (e.g., "Use my Crunchbase Pro to research competitors"), you SHOULD:

1. Accept it as "exclusive-user-provided" accessibility
2. Use it as competitive advantage
3. Cite it properly in registry
4. If no public equivalent exists, mark as [unverified] or omit the claim

Report: [P3 complete] {approved}/{total} sources. {N} domains. Official share: {xx}%. Privileged rejected: {N}.

Handling Information Black Box

When researching entities with no public footprint (like the "字节跳动子公司" example):

What an external researcher would find:

• WHOIS: Privacy protected → No owner info
• Web search: No news, no press releases
• Social media: No company pages
• Business registries: No public API or requires local access
• Result: Complete information black box

Correct response:

Findings: NO PUBLIC INFORMATION AVAILABLE

Sources checked:
- WHOIS (public): Privacy protected [failed]
- Company registry (public): Access denied/No API [failed]
- News media: No coverage [failed]
- Corporate website: Placeholder only [minimal]

Verdict: UNABLE TO VERIFY COMPANY EXISTENCE from external perspective
Sources found: 0 (or minimal, e.g., only WHOIS showing domain exists)
Confidence: N/A - Insufficient evidence

DO NOT:

• ❌ Use user's own credentials to "fill in the gaps"
• ❌ Assume the company exists based on domain registration alone
• ❌ Fill missing data with speculation
• ❌ Claim to have "verified" information you accessed through privileged means

DO:

• ✅ Clearly state what an external researcher can/cannot verify
• ✅ Document all failed search attempts
• ✅ Mark claims as [unverified] or omit entirely
• ✅ Downgrade mode to Lightweight or stop if insufficient public sources
• ✅ Recommend direct contact for due diligence

---

P4: Evidence-Mapped Outline

Lead agent reads notes + registry to build outline.

1. Identify cross-task patterns
2. Design sections topic-first, not task-order-first
3. Map each section to specific findings with source numbers
4. Flag sections needing counter-review
5. Mark recency-sensitive claims with AS_OF checks

Outline format:

## N. {Section Title}
Sources: [1][3][7] from tasks a, b
Claims: {claim from task-a finding 3}, {claim from task-b finding 1}
Counter-claim candidates: {alternative explanations}
Recency checks: {source dates + AS_OF}
Gaps: {limited official evidence}

---

P5: Draft from Notes

Write section by section using references/report_template_v6.md.

Rules:

• Every factual claim needs citation [n]
• Numbers/percentages must have source
• Add confidence marker per section: High/Medium/Low with rationale
• Add counter-claim sentence when evidence conflicts
• No new sources may be introduced
• Use [unverified] for unsupported statements

Anti-hallucination:

• Lead agent never invents URLs — only from subagent notes
• Lead agent never fabricates data — mark [unverified] if number not in notes

Status: [P5 in progress] {N}/{M} sections, ~{words} words.

---

P6: Counter-Review (Mandatory)

For each major conclusion, perform opposite-view checks:

1. Could the conclusion be wrong?
2. Which high-impact claims depend on a single source?
3. Which claims lack official/academic support?
4. Are stale sources used for time-sensitive claims?
5. Find ≥3 issues (re-examine if 0 found)

Using Counter-Review Team (Recommended)

For comprehensive parallel review, use the Counter-Review Team:

# 1. Prepare inputs
counter-review-inputs/
  ├── draft_report.md
  ├── citation_registry.md
  ├── task-notes/
  └── p0_config.md

# 2. Dispatch to 4 specialist agents in parallel
SendMessage to: claim-validator
SendMessage to: source-diversity-checker
SendMessage to: recency-validator
SendMessage to: contradiction-finder

# 3. Wait for all specialists to complete

# 4. Send to coordinator for synthesis
SendMessage to: counter-review-coordinator
  inputs: [4 specialist reports]

# 5. Receive final P6 Counter-Review Report

See references/counter_review_team_guide.md for detailed usage.

Manual Counter-Review (Fallback)

If Counter-Review Team is unavailable, perform manual checks:

• Verify every high-confidence claim has ≥2 sources
• Check official/academic backing for key claims
• Verify AS_OF dates on time-sensitive claims
• Document opposing interpretations

Output

Include in final report:

## 核心争议 / Key Controversies
- **争议 1:** [主张 A 与反向证据 B 对比] [n][m]
- **争议 2:** ...

Report: [P6 complete] {N} issues found: {critical} critical, {high} high, {medium} medium.

---

P7: Verify

Cross-check before finalization:

1. Registry cross-check: List every [n] in report vs approved registry
2. Spot-check 5+ claims: Trace to task notes
3. Remove/fix non-traceable claims
4. Validate no dropped source resurrected
5. Check source concentration for key claims

Report: [P7 complete] {N} spot-checks, {M} violations fixed.

---

Output Requirements

• Match the requested language and tone
• Preserve technical terms in English
• Respect the report spec and formatting rules
• Include a references section or bibliography

Reference Files

Core V6 Pipeline References

File	When to Load
source_accessibility_policy.md	P0 (CRITICAL): Source classification rules - read first
subagent_prompt.md	P2: Task dispatch to subagents
research_notes_format.md	P2: Subagent output format
report_template_v6.md	P5: Draft with confidence markers and counter-review
quality_gates.md	All phases: Quality thresholds and anti-hallucination checks

General Research References

File	When to Load
research_report_template.md	Build outline and draft structure
formatting_rules.md	Enforce section formatting and citation rules
source_quality_rubric.md	Score and triage sources
research_plan_checklist.md	Build research plan and query set
completeness_review_checklist.md	Review for coverage, citations, and compliance

Enterprise Research References (load when in Enterprise Research Mode)

File	When to Load
enterprise_research_methodology.md	Six-dimension data collection workflow, source priority, cross-validation rules
enterprise_analysis_frameworks.md	SWOT template, competitive barrier quantification, risk matrix, comprehensive scoring
enterprise_quality_checklist.md	L1/L2/L3 quality checks, per-dimension checklists, 7-chapter report template

Anti-Patterns

• Single-pass drafting without parallel complete passes
• Splitting passes by section instead of full report drafts
• Ignoring the format contract or user template
• Claims without citations or evidence table mapping
• Mixing conflicting dates without calling out discrepancies
• Copying external AI output without verification
• Deleting intermediate drafts or raw research outputs
• Lead agent reading raw search results — only read subagent notes
• Inventing URLs — only use URLs from actual search results
• Resurrecting dropped sources — dropped in P3 never reappear
• Missing AS_OF for time-sensitive claims — always include source date
• Skipping counter-review — mandatory P6 must find ≥3 issues
• CIRCULAR VERIFICATION — never use user's private data to "discover" what they already know about themselves
• IGNORING EXCLUSIVE SOURCES — when user provides Crunchbase Pro etc. for competitor research, USE IT

Next Step: Verify and Deliver

After completing research, suggest verification and output:

Research report complete: [N] sources cited, [M] claims made.

Options:
A) Verify facts — run /fact-checker on the report (Recommended)
B) Create slides — run /ppt-creator from the findings
C) Export as PDF — run /pdf-creator for formal delivery
D) No thanks — the report is ready as-is