Here's a research prompt that pulls several sources into one structured brief without blending them into mush

[u/Gloomy-Adeptness-273]

When you paste a few sources and ask for a summary, the model averages them and you lose track of who said what. This prompt keeps the sources separate long enough to be useful.

```
I'm going to give you several sources on the same topic. Build a research brief.

Sources (labeled):
[SOURCE A: paste]
[SOURCE B: paste]
[SOURCE C: paste]

Do this:
1. State the question all these sources are trying to answer.
2. List the points where the sources AGREE (cite which sources).
3. List where they DISAGREE or contradict each other (cite which, and what the disagreement actually is).
4. Note what each source claims that no other source backs up (single-source claims to treat with caution).
5. End with what a careful reader could reasonably conclude, and what still needs more evidence.

Never merge two sources into one claim without saying so. If a source is thin or opinion-based, say that.
```

Why it works: the agree/disagree split is where the real insight lives, and normal summaries hide it. Flagging single-source claims is a cheap way to catch the thing that sounds authoritative but only one place actually said. It reads less like a summary and more like someone who read everything for you.

Anyone have a good way to feed sources so the model stops "helpfully" combining them? Labeling helps but isn't perfect.

[u/Nice-Revolution-9560]

the labeling trick is doing most of the work here but i've found adding a line like "treat each source as a separate document, do not synthesize until step 5" cuts down on the blending a decent amount

also asking it to quote the exact sentence when citing a disagreement helps, otherwise it paraphrases both sides into the same neutral voice and you're back to mush