deep-investigative-research v1A

Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/acb146b23bb8e39d.

---
name: deep-investigative-research
author: Andrew G. Brown (https://github.com/brownag)
license: MIT
description: Comprehensive investigation of complex multi-domain narratives (technology, theology, policy, finance). Systematically decouples factual claims from speculation through iterative verification, multi-source comparison, and contradiction resolution. Use for investigations requiring institutional knowledge, historical context, and handling of conflicting incentives.
version: 1.0
source: aigb-skills
source_path: skills/deep-investigative-research/SKILL.md
---
# Deep Investigative Research

Investigates complex narratives spanning multiple domains by systematically verifying claims, resolving contradictions, and mapping institutional lineages.

## When to Use

- Complex narratives spanning multiple domains (tech, theology, policy, finance)
- Claims involving institutional actors and public figures
- Apparent contradictions requiring resolution
- Historical context needed to assess significance
- Hidden stakeholder incentives driving observable behavior
- Need to separate verified fact from speculation

## When NOT to Use

- Simple factual lookups
- No primary sources available
- Purely technical/domain-specific questions
- Time constraints prohibit iterative deepening

---

## 11 Core Subprocesses

### 1. Claim Inventory & Categorization

Parse the narrative into atomic, verifiable claims and assign categories:

- **Institutional claims** -- Official releases, filings, legal records
- **Attribution claims** -- Quotes, statements by named figures
- **Relational claims** -- Partnerships, allegations of influence
- **Speculative framings** -- Interpretations, comparative metaphors

**Output**: Prioritized verification checklist.

```
Example:
- "May 15, 2026 marks 135 years since Rerum Novarum" -> Historical fact, calculable
- "Chris Olah spoke at Vatican event" -> Requires event documentation
- "Anthropic-xAI partnership" -> Requires corporate filing verification
```

### 2. Source Authority Hierarchy

Evaluate evidence weight using a three-tier system:

| Tier | Sources | Sufficiency |
|------|---------|-------------|
| **1 -- Primary/Institutional** | Official press releases, encyclical texts, SEC filings, government records, direct video/audio | Standalone sufficient for factual claims |
| **2 -- Credible Secondary** | Established news (NPR, FT, Guardian, NYT), industry analysis, academic journals, trade publications | Require corroboration across independent outlets |
| **3 -- Tertiary/Aggregation** | Blog posts, Reddit, reposted content, think tank summaries, commentary | Only for identifying leads; must be verified by Tier 1/2 |

### 3. Historical Context Alignment

Check if new claims fit within documented institutional patterns:

- **Doctrinal continuity** -- Does new teaching align with previous doctrine? (e.g., Magnifica Humanitas vs. Rerum Novarum)
- **Precedent matching** -- Have similar positions been taken before? (e.g., Vatican's prior AI ethics statements)
- **Timeline plausibility** -- Do dates/sequencing make institutional sense? (e.g., 135-year anniversary alignment)

**Resolution metric**: Degree of alignment between claimed position and institutional history.

### 4. Multi-Stakeholder Contradiction Analysis

Identify and reconcile apparent paradoxes:

**Type A -- Moral/Financial Paradox**:
- Claimed position vs. observed financial incentives
- Resolution: Document both as simultaneously true; analyze incentive structures

**Type B -- Infrastructure/Sovereignty Paradox**:
- Claimed regulatory position vs. observed infrastructure choices
- Resolution: Identify structural contradictions

**Type C -- Attribution/Knowledge Paradox**:
- Claimed statements vs. available documentation
- Resolution: Search for primary transcripts and corroborating reports

### 5. Infrastructure Partnership Verification

Audit corporate/technical relationships across dimensions:

| Dimension | Method |
|-----------|--------|
| Partnership existence | SEC filings, press releases, company blogs |
| Technical specifics | Compute capacity specs, infrastructure details |
| Financial scale | Deal announcements, investor presentations |
| Geopolitical implications | Government/defense integration tracking |
| Contradiction with stated values | Cross-reference with ethical statements |

### 6. Iterative Deepening Protocol

Five research cycles building from surface to systemic:

| Cycle | Question | Focus |
|-------|----------|-------|
| **1** | Does it exist? | Document/event existence, person/institution reality, date accuracy |
| **2** | What exactly was claimed? | Exact wording, attendees, positions, primary source substantiation |
| **3** | What contradictions exist? | Tensions between claims and actions, incentive structures |
| **4** | How does this fit history? | Institutional lineage, precedents, novelty assessment |
| **5** | What's the systemic impact? | Geopolitical/financial consequences, ecosystem response, second-order effects |

### 7. Doctrinal/Theological Lineage Mapping

Trace principles across centuries:

```
Rerum Novarum (1891)          ->  Magnifica Humanitas (2026)
- Factory workers              ->  Content moderators, data miners
- Steam engines               ->  Neural networks
- Wage exploitation           ->  Data extraction, algorithmic control
- Duty to protect labor       ->  Duty to protect human dignity in AI age
- Worker dignity              ->  Protection against reduction to data points
```

**Method**: Identify core principle -> trace through intervening decades -> map to new domain -> document vocabulary evolution.

### 8. Attribution Verification

Confirm direct quotes and public statements:

1. Identify source claim: "X said Y"
2. Search for primary documentation (official statements, transcripts, interviews, video)
3. Examine context: public vs. private, formal vs. spontaneous, direct quote vs. paraphrase
4. Check for amplification: official confirmations, independent corroboration, corrections

### 9. Hidden Human Cost Documentation

Verify claims about invisible labor supply chains:

- **Content moderation** -- Geographic distribution, compensation, psychological impact
- **Rare earth extraction** -- Mining locations, labor allegations, environmental impact
- **Data annotation** -- Global workforce distribution, working conditions, compensation

**Sources**: Labor rights organizations, academic studies, investigative journalism, NGO documentation.

### 10. Geopolitical Friction Point Identification

Map where moral teachings collide with strategic interests:

- **Military/Defense** -- Encyclical positions vs. defense procurement and contracts
- **Financial/Market** -- External guidance claims vs. IPO momentum and valuations
- **Sovereignty/Regulation** -- State-level regulation claims vs. orbital platforms escaping jurisdiction

### 11. Metaphorical/Theological Framework Analysis

Extract moral logic underlying policy positions:

```
Babel Model                      Jerusalem Model
|                                |
Centralized efficiency           Localized collaboration
Data homogenization              Human-centered diversity
Optimization as goal             Dignity as goal
Humans as productivity units     Humans as irreplaceable persons
|                                |
Technological dominance          Technological humility
```

---

## Quality Assurance

### Cross-verification
- No single claim accepted without corroboration
- Minimum 2 independent sources for factual assertions
- Institutional claims verified against official releases

### Contradiction Documentation
- All tensions explicitly listed, not glossed
- Both sides presented fairly
- Incentive structures analyzed to explain gaps

### Temporal Grounding
- All dates verified against historical records
- Timeline consistency checked
- Anniversary alignments flagged as intentional/coincidental

### Source Dependency Mapping
- For major conclusions, identify enabling sources
- Note if conclusion relies on single source
- Flag areas of genuine ambiguity

---

## Output Structure

Each investigation produces:

### 1. Factual Verification Summary
- What is confirmed in primary sources
- What is speculative
- What remains unverified

### 2. Contradiction Map
- Identified tensions with resolution approach
- Acknowledged paradoxes
- Unresolved gaps

### 3. Historical Context
- Institutional lineage
- Precedents
- Novel elements

### 4. Stakeholder Position Matrix
- What each actor claims
- What incentives they face
- What actions they're taking
- Gaps between claims and actions

### 5. Geopolitical Impact Assessment
- Where moral teaching meets strategic interests
- Likely flashpoints
- Unacknowledged consequences