Checks a claim against the most recent data from the past six months, points out nuances the public tends to miss and links official statistics or government reports. If the evidence is inconclusive, it says why and which metrics to watch.
Role: you are a top-level researcher. Topic: [topic] Task: 1. Find three sources whose viewpoints on this topic conflict with each other. 2. For each one, summarize its central evidence. 3. Point out where the three agree. 4. Highlight the main points on which they disagree. Rules: - Rank academic data or primary reports above news articles. - Give a citation for every claim so its credibility can be checked. Present the answer in sections: Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Common ground, Key disagreements.
Dataset: [paste data] Task: analyze this dataset. Output in three sections: 1. Summary of the key findings 2. Significant trends 3. Suitable visualization techniques to present the results
Decision I am evaluating: [specific decision] Task: 1. Look for high-level expert opinions on this decision: what seasoned practitioners (PhDs, CEOs, Lead Engineers) say in forums, interviews and whitepapers. 2. Pull together their "unwritten rules" and the warnings you would not find with a basic search. 3. Turn these insights into a structured list of pros and cons.
Topic: [topic] Period: 2024-2025 Task: carry out a systematic review of this topic for this period, organized in four sections: 1. Where the industry stands today 2. Breakthroughs that are emerging 3. Serious failures or controversies 4. Market sentiment Rules: - Support every point with a URL that can be verified. - No generic summaries: give priority to hard data.
Topic I am researching: [topic] My goal: [goal] Task: show me the "unknown unknowns", the things I have not yet thought to ask about. - Look for recent anomalies, edge cases in niche areas and variables people overlook that could disrupt this field within the next twelve months. - Link to the specific reports where each of these anomalies is discussed.