{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20260920-75ad787a",
  "url": "/knowledge/separate-discovery-tools-from-evidence-sources",
  "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0515",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "title": "Separate discovery tools from evidence sources",
  "summary": "The thing that found the evidence is not necessarily the evidence.",
  "kind": "principle",
  "body": "Use AI, search ranking, newsletters and aggregators to discover candidates. Then open and inspect the source appropriate to the claim—primary study, standard, official guidance or strong synthesis. Preserve the discovery route for provenance if useful, but cite the evidence source for the factual proposition.",
  "limits": [
    "Some expert syntheses are legitimate evidence sources themselves; 'primary' is not automatically superior for every question."
  ],
  "topics": [
    "union-research-search-strategy"
  ],
  "intents": [],
  "source_ids": [
    "RS-8F4C4508DD81680B"
  ],
  "evidence": [
    {
      "claim": "Generative-AI literature synthesis can contain hallucinated or misattributed evidence, so generated summaries should not substitute for inspecting the underlying source.",
      "source_id": "RS-8F4C4508DD81680B",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "AI tools vary and can still be useful for discovery, query expansion and triage with verification.",
      "locator": "Hallucination and attribution findings"
    }
  ],
  "use_when": [
    "An AI answer, search snippet or recommendation surfaces a useful claim."
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "Some expert syntheses are legitimate evidence sources themselves; 'primary' is not automatically superior for every question."
  ],
  "example": "An AI tool suggests a new 2026 experiment; the corpus claim links to the paper, not to the AI conversation.",
  "check": "Every material claim can point beyond the discovery interface to an inspectable evidence source.",
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "RS-8F4C4508DD81680B",
      "title": "Can generative AI reliably synthesise literature? exploring hallucination issues in ChatGPT",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02406-7"
    }
  ],
  "relations": [
    {
      "from": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0515",
      "to": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0424",
      "type": "useful_with",
      "url": "/knowledge/trace-the-claim-to-an-accountable-origin-before-counting-citations"
    }
  ],
  "collections": [
    {
      "id": "RC-F645BF33EA699D13",
      "title": "Search for evidence as a reproducible process, not a lucky query",
      "url": "/collections/search-for-evidence-as-a-reproducible-process-not-a-lucky-query"
    }
  ]
}