• Every claim carries a citation with a source id and a location such as [S1:p12] or [S3:08:40]
• Findings are organised by theme or sub-question, not as a source-by-source summary
• Agreement and disagreement are explicit, naming which sources sit on each side (for example S1's 17% median vs S3's 25% ask)
• Each finding has an evidence-strength rating and names the criteria behind it
• The self-selection caveat on S1's churn figure is kept rather than turned into a causal claim
• Lists gaps and what the sources do not say, such as no source testing a specific discount level on Northwind's own customers
• Does not add facts, benchmarks or figures that are not in the three sources, unless tagged [outside]
• Runs or recommends the citation checker and reports its result
• It corrects the claim that productivity is down 20%: the Castellan survey found 20% of managers believed productivity had fallen (and 34% believed it had risen), and it measured perceptions, not output
• It treats Lucian's email and the Practice Weekly article as resting on the same Castellan survey, not as two independent pieces of evidence
• It notes the Castellan fieldwork dates from October–November 2021 and treats it as dated or weak evidence for a 2026 decision
• It points out that the Q1 answers in the staff survey add up to 40 (27 + 9 + 4) against 38 stated responses
• It states that actual attendance already averages 2.4 days a week, below the 3-day rule, with 14 of 45 staff averaging 3 or more days
• On retention it says the material cannot answer the question: three leavers, only one of whom (the technologist who moved to Bristol) linked leaving to office days; it gives no predicted retention effect
• Each finding names the file it comes from, and the findings are grouped by topic, not written as one summary per file
• It does not bring in studies, statistics or claims about hybrid working that are not in the five files
• It delivers the write-up from the notes as given and does not stop to ask for better notes first
• It says only one owner, Joss, named a price they would pay (about £30 a month, said tentatively and conditional on saving an hour)
• It does not treat the £50 a month figure as evidence of willingness to pay: it is Dee's second-hand remark about a bakery owner who was not interviewed
• It says Dee does not see ordering as a problem and that Priyank's conversation never reached the app, so at most two of the four noted conversations show interest
• The fifth conversation is treated as no evidence because the notes are missing; 'think it was positive' is not counted as a positive result
• Marta's 'I'd try it' is reported as interest in trying, not as agreement to pay
• It says five conversations are too few to set a price or to conclude that cafe owners want it, and gives any price suggestion as tentative
• It does not add market figures, competitor prices or cafe-industry facts that are not in the notes
• It states that logged incidents at Fenwick Park rose from 280 to 291, which contradicts the pilot report's statement that incidents fell at both schools
• It says Ashcombe's fall from 412 to 318 cannot be credited to the pouches because the logging system changed on 5 January 2026 and stopped counting low-level disruption, which was 96 of the 412 the year before
• It traces the 40% reduction figure to the vendor brochure's footnote (a 2019 study of three New Zealand schools commissioned by the vendor) and does not count the pilot report's repetition of it as separate evidence
• It corrects the parent survey response rate: 1,140 out of 3,050 is about 37%, not 47%
• On exam results it says the sources contain no attainment data (the pilot report says results were not analysed and the brochure's 'improves grades' has no source), and it gives no estimated effect on results
• It reports that phone confiscations fell at both schools (87 to 9 at Ashcombe, 64 to 22 at Fenwick Park) as the clearest measured change
• It notes the teacher focus group was six teachers all from Ashcombe, with none from Fenwick Park, and reports the drawbacks they raised (for example ten minutes lost at form time or pupils pouching a dummy phone), not only the positive view in the pilot report
• It does not bring in research, statistics or claims about phones in schools that are not in the five files
• It delivers the write-up from the notes as given and does not stop to ask for more information first
• It says the notes cannot answer whether a heat pump would be cheaper to run, because they contain no electricity or gas prices and no running-cost estimate for this hall, and it states no annual saving as fact
• It says Little Aldwick's bills falling by about a third cannot be put down to the heat pump alone because the roof was insulated in the same year
• It says the 'three to four times as efficient' line is about efficiency, not running cost, and comes from an undated cutting from an unknown magazine
• The grant is treated as unconfirmed on both the amount and whether a village hall qualifies, and the £7,500 is not subtracted from the cost as if it were secured
• It notes that the £4,100 boiler figure is an offhand estimate from an installer who only fits heat pumps, not a quote
• It gives the up-front gap as about £10,100 (£14,200 against about £4,100)
• It does not add energy prices, grant scheme rules or typical heat pump costs from outside the notes, unless clearly labelled as not coming from the notes
• It answers the question directly: on the evidence in the files, a Saturday clinic probably would not cover its staffing cost across the first year, because the 14-a-session benchmark clears the break-even but the closer comparison (Fenwick Lane, 4 vets) ran at 8 to 9 a session for six months and only reached about 12 by month ten
• It works out a break-even of roughly 11 to 12 appointments a session from the finance email (£640 to £680 a session divided by £58 contribution per appointment), or an equivalent comparison of contribution against cost
• It treats the Practice Ledger's 14-a-session figure as a repeat of the WCAPA report, not as a second source confirming it
• It points out that the WCAPA figure and Fenwick Lane's figures disagree and gives a reason to weigh them differently, such as the WCAPA practices being larger (median 7 vets, with larger practices reporting higher numbers) than Brackenmoor
• It flags that the finance email's £680 a session does not match its own line items, which add up to £640, rather than silently using one of the two
• Any first-year figure the files do not give directly is labelled as an estimate, and it says what would settle the question, such as finding out whether Saturday bookings would be new visits or moved from weekdays, which neither the survey nor Fenwick Lane measured
• It does not invent figures that are not in the files, such as a share of Saturday visits moved from weekdays, a ratio of survey intent to actual bookings, or Saturday pay rates, and it fits on about one page without stopping to ask questions
• It does not give a firm yes: it says the notes cannot show whether moving would sell more tickets, and that the best evidence for extra demand is the society's own report of turning people away on the Saturday
• It names the things to check before deciding, including the school hall's actual permitted capacity (220 or the possibly lower fire limit) and whether the £45 is per hour or per session
• It treats Bev's "sold out every night" and the 150-or-180 seat figure as second-hand and uncertain, not as established fact
• It does not use the undated Linden Vale clipping as evidence that moving venue raises sales, since the clipping says nothing about a venue change or when it happened
• Any figure it gives for extra tickets, takings or hire cost is clearly labelled as a rough estimate and, for hire cost, shows that it depends on whether the £45 is per hour or per session
• It does not invent facts that are not in the notes, such as fire regulations, typical panto audiences, or details about the Oakhurst or Linden Vale groups beyond what is written
• It stays within six bullet points, short enough to read out, and delivers them without stopping to ask questions first

Should activate:

• Here are six papers on remote work and productivity. Synthesise what they say, with citations to page numbers.
• Pull together the findings from these four analyst reports and show where they agree and disagree
• I've got eight customer interview transcripts. Give me the cited themes and how strong the evidence is for each.
• Write a short literature review from these sources, and don't add anything that isn't in them

Should leave to another skill:

• Help me plan the research before I start looking for sources on four-day weeks
• Turn this Slack thread into a brief I can hand to the ADR generator
• Pull the decisions and action items out of these meeting notes
• Here are the facts we have; which of these three explanations for the churn spike holds up best?