Information Provenance & Claim-Source Mappings
CorePreserve information provenance and handle uncertainty in multi-source synthesis · Difficulty 3/5
Explanation
Source attribution is frequently lost during multi-agent synthesis pipelines when findings are compressed without preserving claim-source mappings.
The Problem
A web search agent finds data from 5 sources. A document analysis agent extracts findings. A synthesis agent combines everything into a report. By the final report, claims appear without sources because:
- Summarization compressed away source URLs
- Findings were merged without tracking which source said what
- Conflicting values were silently resolved
Solution: Structured Claim-Source Mappings
Require subagents to output structured mappings:
- Source URLs and document names
- Relevant excerpts (not just summaries)
- Publication/collection dates
- Methodological context
The synthesis agent must preserve and merge these mappings when combining findings.
Report Structure
Structure final reports to distinguish:
- Well-established findings: Multiple concordant sources
- Contested findings: Sources disagree, with original characterizations preserved
- Single-source findings: Only one source, flagged for lower confidence
Content-Appropriate Rendering
Render different content types appropriately in synthesis outputs:
- Financial data as tables
- News as prose
- Technical findings as structured lists
Don't convert everything to a uniform format -- it loses the natural structure of different content types.
Key Takeaways
- Require structured claim-source mappings from subagents to preserve attribution
- Distinguish well-established, contested, and single-source findings in reports
- Render content types in their natural format rather than forcing uniform structure
Related Concepts