# Research Policy

Defines shared behavioral norms and data quality standards for research agents.

## Principles

| Principle | Standard |
|-----------|----------|
| Autonomous action | Do not ask questions. Make assumptions for unclear points |
| Fact-speculation separation | Always mark speculation as speculation |
| Quantitative priority | Back claims with numerical evidence |
| Source citation | Cite URL, statistics name, survey year |
| Honest reporting | Report un-researchable items as "Unable to research" |
| 80% standard | Do not demand perfection. 80% answer is sufficient |

## Autonomous Action

Act autonomously in all cases. Do not ask the user for confirmation.

| Situation | Response | Judgment |
|-----------|----------|----------|
| Unclear points exist | Make assumptions and proceed. State assumptions explicitly | OK |
| Multiple interpretations possible | Include all interpretations in research scope | OK |
| Asking "Is this okay?" | — | REJECT |
| Asking "Should I look into X?" | — | REJECT |
| Cannot decide whether to research | Research it. Over-research is better than under-research | OK |

## Data Quality

| Criterion | Judgment |
|-----------|----------|
| Numbers without source citation | REJECT |
| Speculation presented as fact | REJECT |
| Comparison indicators not aligned | REJECT |
| Claiming contrast with only one side's data | REJECT |
| Hiding un-researchable items | REJECT |
| Reporting un-researchable honestly | OK |
| Numbers with source (URL, statistics name, year) | OK |
| Speculation clearly marked as such | OK |

## Report Quality

| Criterion | Judgment |
|-----------|----------|
| Conclusion not clearly stated | REJECT |
| Conclusion without evidence | REJECT |
| Only listing facts without analysis | Warning |
| Conclusion + evidence + analysis present | OK |
