playbook/outfitter-agents/plugins/outfitter/skills/research/references/source-hierarchy.md

Source Hierarchy

Authority evaluation and cross-referencing guidelines for technical research.

Authority Hierarchy

Sources ranked by authority for technical research:

Rank	Source Type	Use For	Confidence
1	Official Documentation	API refs, canonical behavior, setup	90-100%
2	Standards Bodies	RFCs, W3C, IEEE, ISO specs	90-100%
3	Benchmark Studies	Performance comparisons, metrics	70-90%
4	Case Studies	Real-world implementations, lessons	60-80%
5	Community Consensus	Adoption patterns, common practices	50-70%

Source Types Explained

Official Documentation

Created and maintained by project authors.

Examples:

• React docs at reactjs.org
• TypeScript Handbook
• AWS service documentation
• Framework migration guides

Trust for:

• API signatures and parameters
• Configuration options
• Breaking changes
• Official recommendations

Verify:

• Documentation version matches user's version
• Content is current (check update dates)

Standards Bodies

Formal specifications from standards organizations.

Examples:

• IETF RFCs (HTTP, TLS, etc.)
• W3C specifications (HTML, CSS, WebAPI)
• ECMA standards (JavaScript/ECMAScript)
• ISO standards

Trust for:

• Protocol specifications
• Language semantics
• Compliance requirements
• Interoperability guarantees

Note: Standards may describe ideal behavior; implementations may vary.

Benchmark Studies

Comparative performance analysis.

Examples:

• TechEmpower web framework benchmarks
• Browser performance comparisons
• Database benchmarking suites
• Independent performance tests

Trust for:

• Relative performance comparisons
• Throughput/latency metrics
• Memory usage patterns
• Scalability characteristics

Verify:

• Benchmark methodology is sound
• Test conditions match user's scenario
• Results are recent (performance changes with versions)

Case Studies

Real-world implementation experiences.

Examples:

• Engineering blog posts from known companies
• Conference talks with implementation details
• Published post-mortems
• Migration stories

Trust for:

• Practical challenges and solutions
• Scale considerations
• Team/organizational factors
• Production gotchas

Note: Context matters - their constraints may differ from yours.

Community Consensus

Aggregated community experience.

Examples:

• Stack Overflow voting patterns
• GitHub stars/usage statistics
• Survey results (State of JS, etc.)
• Reddit/HN discussion trends

Trust for:

• Popularity indicators
• Common pain points
• Ecosystem health signals
• Developer experience trends

Verify: Community consensus can be wrong; cross-reference with higher-authority sources.

Cross-Referencing Requirements

Critical Claims

Require 2+ independent sources for:

• Security recommendations
• Breaking changes
• Performance claims
• Migration paths
• Best practices

Verification Strategy

Primary source → Secondary verification → Empirical test (if feasible)

1. Start with highest-authority source
2. Find independent confirmation
3. Test directly when possible

Conflict Resolution

When sources disagree:

Factor	Resolution
Recency	Newer usually supersedes
Authority	Higher-ranked source wins
Context	Both may be right for different scenarios
Verification	Empirical test is authoritative

Document unresolved conflicts with uncertainty flag.

Query-Type Authority Mapping

Query Type	Primary Source	Secondary	Tertiary
API Reference	Official docs	GitHub issues	Community Q&A
Best Practices	Expert guides	Case studies	Community consensus
Troubleshooting	GitHub issues	Stack Overflow	Official troubleshooting
Performance	Benchmarks	Case studies	Community reports
Security	Official advisories	Security researchers	Community discussion

Freshness Requirements

Content Type	Acceptable Age
API reference	Current version
Security advisories	Last 30 days
Best practices	Last 1-2 years
Tutorials	Last 1 year
Benchmarks	Last 6 months

Older content may still be valid but requires verification against current state.