--- 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