Reusable AI capability
Trace Consequential Claims to Original Evidence
Apply a repeatable claim-provenance method that traces consequential wording through citations and intermediaries to original evidence, exposing mutation, laundering, and authority gaps.
This Skill packages a reusable way to use the linked Prompt or Workflow; Amo.ng does not run it for you.
# Trace Consequential Claims to Original Evidence Skill ID: AMO-S-000016 Skill URL: https://amo.ng/skills/trace-consequential-claims-to-original-evidence Purpose: Give researchers, editors, analysts, policy owners, and release owners a reusable capability for deciding whether a material claim can be released, narrowed, repaired, withheld, or corrected. Required inputs: - Exact material claims and their intended decision, publication, or policy use - Current citations, links, documents, bibliographies, quoted passages, and intermediary sources - Original or near-original sources and datasets where accessible - Source access limits, dates, jurisdiction, population, method, and authority requirements - Accountable editorial, research, policy, legal, or release owner How to use: When to use: - A consequential claim depends on citations that may be secondary, stale, transformed, or disconnected from original evidence. - Publication, research, policy, risk, or decision material needs claim-level provenance. When not to use: - General source discovery with no exact claim to trace. - Treating citation presence, source prestige, or repeated quotation as proof. - Describing an inaccessible original source as inspected. Reusable method: 1. Freeze the exact claim wording and intended use. 2. Decompose compound claims into independently supportable assertions. 3. Trace every citation edge through reports, reviews, summaries, media, datasets, and original studies. 4. Record the transformation at each edge: quotation, paraphrase, synthesis, calculation, inference, omitted qualifier, or unsupported escalation. 5. Compare population, method, date, jurisdiction, outcome, uncertainty, and authority to the current wording. 6. Classify the chain as intact, repairable, broken, inaccessible, circular, or citation-laundered. 7. Recommend release as written, citation upgrade, narrowed wording, hold, removal, or correction. Expected output: A claim register, provenance graph, transformation ledger, source-authority assessment, broken-chain register, release disposition, wording or citation repairs, uncertainty, and owner verification steps. Boundaries: Do not invent source access, methods, datasets, approvals, or conclusions. Editorial or research owners approve wording and source choices; legal reviewers interpret legal obligations; the release owner decides publication, withholding, or correction. Source grounding: AMO-P-000288. Applicable Workflow: AMO-W-000011. Powered by Prompt: Claim Provenance Chain and Citation Traceability Audit Source ID: AMO-P-000288 https://amo.ng/prompts/claim-provenance-chain-and-citation-traceability-audit Completion criteria: Complete when every material claim has an intact chain or explicit break; each transformation and authority limit is recorded; inaccessible evidence is marked; releaseable wording has defensible original or near-original support; and the responsible owner has an observable verification action. Use this Amo.ng Skill with your preferred AI tool. Supply the required inputs and follow the usage instructions. # Trace Consequential Claims to Original Evidence Skill ID: AMO-S-000016 Skill URL: https://amo.ng/skills/trace-consequential-claims-to-original-evidence Purpose: Give researchers, editors, analysts, policy owners, and release owners a reusable capability for deciding whether a material claim can be released, narrowed, repaired, withheld, or corrected. Required inputs: - Exact material claims and their intended decision, publication, or policy use - Current citations, links, documents, bibliographies, quoted passages, and intermediary sources - Original or near-original sources and datasets where accessible - Source access limits, dates, jurisdiction, population, method, and authority requirements - Accountable editorial, research, policy, legal, or release owner How to use: When to use: - A consequential claim depends on citations that may be secondary, stale, transformed, or disconnected from original evidence. - Publication, research, policy, risk, or decision material needs claim-level provenance. When not to use: - General source discovery with no exact claim to trace. - Treating citation presence, source prestige, or repeated quotation as proof. - Describing an inaccessible original source as inspected. Reusable method: 1. Freeze the exact claim wording and intended use. 2. Decompose compound claims into independently supportable assertions. 3. Trace every citation edge through reports, reviews, summaries, media, datasets, and original studies. 4. Record the transformation at each edge: quotation, paraphrase, synthesis, calculation, inference, omitted qualifier, or unsupported escalation. 5. Compare population, method, date, jurisdiction, outcome, uncertainty, and authority to the current wording. 6. Classify the chain as intact, repairable, broken, inaccessible, circular, or citation-laundered. 7. Recommend release as written, citation upgrade, narrowed wording, hold, removal, or correction. Expected output: A claim register, provenance graph, transformation ledger, source-authority assessment, broken-chain register, release disposition, wording or citation repairs, uncertainty, and owner verification steps. Boundaries: Do not invent source access, methods, datasets, approvals, or conclusions. Editorial or research owners approve wording and source choices; legal reviewers interpret legal obligations; the release owner decides publication, withholding, or correction. Source grounding: AMO-P-000288. Applicable Workflow: AMO-W-000011. Powered by Prompt: Claim Provenance Chain and Citation Traceability Audit Source ID: AMO-P-000288 https://amo.ng/prompts/claim-provenance-chain-and-citation-traceability-audit Completion criteria: Complete when every material claim has an intact chain or explicit break; each transformation and authority limit is recorded; inaccessible evidence is marked; releaseable wording has defensible original or near-original support; and the responsible owner has an observable verification action.Copy skill copies the Skill details. Use with AI adds a short instruction for your preferred AI tool; neither action runs the Skill.
Purpose
Give researchers, editors, analysts, policy owners, and release owners a reusable capability for deciding whether a material claim can be released, narrowed, repaired, withheld, or corrected.
Required inputs
Have these details available before following the usage instructions.
- Exact material claims and their intended decision, publication, or policy use
- Current citations, links, documents, bibliographies, quoted passages, and intermediary sources
- Original or near-original sources and datasets where accessible
- Source access limits, dates, jurisdiction, population, method, and authority requirements
- Accountable editorial, research, policy, legal, or release owner
How to use this Skill
When to use:
- A consequential claim depends on citations that may be secondary, stale, transformed, or disconnected from original evidence.
- Publication, research, policy, risk, or decision material needs claim-level provenance.
When not to use:
- General source discovery with no exact claim to trace.
- Treating citation presence, source prestige, or repeated quotation as proof.
- Describing an inaccessible original source as inspected.
Reusable method:
1. Freeze the exact claim wording and intended use.
2. Decompose compound claims into independently supportable assertions.
3. Trace every citation edge through reports, reviews, summaries, media, datasets, and original studies.
4. Record the transformation at each edge: quotation, paraphrase, synthesis, calculation, inference, omitted qualifier, or unsupported escalation.
5. Compare population, method, date, jurisdiction, outcome, uncertainty, and authority to the current wording.
6. Classify the chain as intact, repairable, broken, inaccessible, circular, or citation-laundered.
7. Recommend release as written, citation upgrade, narrowed wording, hold, removal, or correction.
Expected output:
A claim register, provenance graph, transformation ledger, source-authority assessment, broken-chain register, release disposition, wording or citation repairs, uncertainty, and owner verification steps.
Boundaries:
Do not invent source access, methods, datasets, approvals, or conclusions. Editorial or research owners approve wording and source choices; legal reviewers interpret legal obligations; the release owner decides publication, withholding, or correction. Source grounding: AMO-P-000288. Applicable Workflow: AMO-W-000011.
Powered by an Amo.ng Prompt
Claim Provenance Chain and Citation Traceability Audit
Open the linked prompt to use the instructions that power this Skill.
Completion criteria
Complete when every material claim has an intact chain or explicit break; each transformation and authority limit is recorded; inaccessible evidence is marked; releaseable wording has defensible original or near-original support; and the responsible owner has an observable verification action.
Was this useful?
Explore related Workflows
Browse WorkflowsBuild and Defend an Evidence-Grounded Academic Argument
Move from a bounded academic question through source triage, a pre-draft evidence ledger, learner-owned argument development, claim verification, and an assessor-owned oral defence.
Produce an Evidence-Traceable Literature Review
Refine a defensible research question, screen and extract evidence, synthesize the corpus, audit citation currency, and trace material conclusions to original evidence.
Related Prompts
Browse PromptsReplication Package Computational Reproducibility Gate
Inspect a research package for data provenance, licensing, environment, code, seeds, dependencies and expected outputs, separating reproduced evidence from inaccessible work.
Qualitative Codebook Reliability and Reflexivity Protocol
Build and stress-test a qualitative codebook using traceable excerpts, rival interpretations, coder disagreement, positionality and documented adjudication.
Preregistration and Statistical Analysis Plan Coherence Audit
Cross-check hypotheses, outcomes, exclusions, power assumptions, models, multiplicity controls and decision rules before data inspection, with deviations made explicit.
Research Question Identifiability and Design Feasibility Review
Test whether a research question can be answered with the proposed design, population, variables, data and estimand, separating repairable gaps from fatal limitations.
Preprint-to-Policy Use Risk Review
Decide whether preliminary research is mature enough to inform a policy or operating decision, with bounded claims, reversible use, and monitoring conditions.
Citation Obsolescence and Supersession Audit
Determine whether cited evidence remains current and authoritative after corrections, retractions, updates, superseding guidance, or changed decision conditions.