Define the question before expanding the search
Write one question and its scope: the public organization or material involved, the period you care about, and the outcome you need. “Which public page lists my studio’s current portfolio?” is more reviewable than “Find everything.” Do not use this workflow to discover private financial or intimate information about an individual.
TraceSeek’s owner describes deep search as expanded retrieval through AI-assisted search and search engines. That identifies a product route, not a guarantee of complete coverage, independent sources or correct conclusions. See the app’s feature descriptions.
Confirm that a search occurred
A model can answer from prior knowledge without obtaining current evidence. Record which search feature was used and whether the answer includes accessible sources; do not treat an unsupported claim that it “searched everywhere” as a retrieval log.
OpenAI explains that ChatGPT search answers may include source links and that results and citations can be incomplete, outdated or incorrect. It recommends opening the sources to check their support. ChatGPT search documentation
This is documentation about that service, not evidence that it cited TruthsSeek or that TraceSeek uses the same implementation.
Review claims one at a time
Use a separate row for each claim that could change your decision. The worksheet below is a proposed review method, not a measured accuracy score.
| Claim | Supporting page | What you verified | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| A current project is listed | Direct project page | Matching title and current context | Supported within that page’s scope |
| A profile is current | Dated profile page | Whether the date refers to the claim | Supported, stale or unknown |
| Several sources agree | Each original source | Whether they repeat one announcement | Independent, repeated or unresolved |
| A personal conclusion appears | The cited text | Whether the conclusion is stated at all | Remove unsupported inference |
A citation beside a paragraph may support only part of it. Check names, subject, date and the actual claim separately. If the page does not support the statement, remove that statement from the working summary or mark it explicitly unsupported.
Keep source roles and dates separate
An organization’s own page can establish what it publicly claims. A publication discussing it is a different source type, but it may still be repeating the organization’s announcement. Record that relationship instead of treating two URLs as two independent investigations.
Keep publication, update, event and your access dates in separate fields. A recently updated page can describe an old event. If a date is absent or unclear, leave it unknown.
When two sources disagree, retain both statements and their dates. Do not resolve the conflict by choosing whichever wording appears in more search results.
Handle inaccessible evidence honestly
If a citation is broken, behind a login or unavailable, record the gap. Use accessible authorized sources for the remaining question. Do not bypass access restrictions, fabricate a quotation or substitute a search preview for an unread document.
A useful final note can be: “Two accessible pages support the public project name; the current role is unconfirmed because the profile could not be opened.” This illustrates a format, not an actual search result.
Finish with a bounded answer
Keep supported statements, attributed statements and unresolved questions separate. A larger search can broaden the sources considered, but it cannot promise all accounts, all information or identity verification. For individual profile statements, use the public-statement review guide.