How do I read the Sources & References record?

The Sources & References record sits beneath the five reasoning phases. It is not one of the numbered reasoning steps; it is the foundation underneath them, shown with a link marker rather than a number. Where the reasoning phases argue, the Sources record simply lists what the analysis actually drew on, so you can go to the originals yourself.

It is built only from sources that were actually retrieved during the analysis. Anything that was not genuinely retrieved is removed before you see it, so the record is a real account of the evidence, not a plausible-looking bibliography.

Sources are classified into three tiers, and primary sources are preferred and presented first:

• Primary: original research, statutory text, official documents, and data. The closest you can get to the thing itself.
• Secondary: quality journalism, expert analysis, and scholarly syntheses that interpret primary material.
• Tertiary: reference material and overviews, useful for orientation rather than as the last word.

The tier tells you how directly a claim is grounded. A point resting on primary sources is anchored more firmly than one resting only on a tertiary overview.

Every source carries factual bias indicators: organizational affiliations, funding sources, and known editorial perspectives. These are descriptive, never judgmental. A source from an advocacy organization can be entirely high-quality and accurate; you simply deserve to know its provenance so you can weigh it yourself. The indicators tell you where a source is coming from, not whether to trust it.

Each source also carries a corroboration label assigned during the analysis: multi-source confirmed, single source, or unconfirmed. This label reflects the analysis's own assessment of how well a point is corroborated across the evidence it gathered. It is not a separate verification process run by Kindred, and it is worth reading in that spirit: a single-source or unconfirmed label is an invitation to look closer, not a verdict.

Citations are deep links by standard: they should point at the specific document a claim drew on, not at a publisher's front page. When a link cannot meet that standard, the record says so plainly rather than hiding it:

• “No direct link available” means the source has no usable URL to link to.
• “Links to the site homepage, not the cited document” means the only available link reaches a homepage rather than the specific page, so you may need to search within that site to find the exact material.

These notes are deliberate honesty about link quality, so you always know what a link will and will not take you to.

Treat the Sources record as the receipts for the analysis. When a claim in the reasoning matters to you, follow its citation into this record and then to the original. Weigh the tier, read the bias indicators, note the corroboration label, and check the link-quality note before you rely on a point. The record exists precisely so that you can verify rather than take the analysis on faith.

One honest limit is worth keeping in mind: a citation links a claim to a real retrieved source, but the content of each claim is not yet mechanically checked against that source. The link is genuine; the final read is still yours.

How grounding works underneath→