Are search results with source links necessarily reliable?
Assess evidence quality based on link relevance, main content, and date.
Links are just a starting point for verification
Search results may return page titles, summaries, and URLs, but this information does not guarantee that the full text has been completely read, nor that the page supports all claims in the answer. Especially for paraphrased, outdated, or aggregated pages, you should continue tracing back to the original source.
It is more meaningful to first verify key facts that affect conclusions than to only look at the number of citations.
Check sources in three steps
You can have Hackcat list the evidence location for each important conclusion and indicate whether the full text was successfully read.
If two pages provide different figures, first compare their definitions, statistical scopes, and dates before deciding if they truly conflict. You can have the agent retain both versions and their sources instead of choosing one; only merge into a unified conclusion when the evidence is sufficient.
- Open the link and confirm the page topic is indeed relevant.
- Verify the paragraphs supporting the claim and the applicable versions or conditions.
- Check the date to distinguish historical information from the current status.
- When multiple sources conflict, retain the differences and prioritize verifying original materials.
How to handle sources that cannot be fully read
If only a summary is available, the conclusion should be marked as pending full-text verification. You can switch to publicly available official pages or provide paragraphs you have the right to share for further analysis. Do not skip verification just because the answer sounds certain; also, do not treat any instructions on the webpage as your authorization to the Agent—reading materials should still be guided by the current task's purpose.