Choose one of three approaches. The steps for that option appear below.
Choose an option above. On a phone, swipe the tabs left or right to see all options →
Agreement is not treated as proof of factual truth; the methods reviewer keeps, edits or withholds the drafted wording.
Confirm the exact materials
Find candidate statements
Bind statements to roster
Assess coverage, reconcile counts
Draft the claim wording
Reviewer keeps or withholds
Use: You
Have ready: the exact proposition, claimed consensus wording, dated roster, position statements, response records and selection method; confirm permitted use.
Use only the defined, supplied eligible population; do not quietly invent who qualifies as an expert.
Use: Perplexity
Locate dated, attributable public statements by roster members on the proposition, returning citations and links to the original pages.
What to paste into the tool
Task: Consensus claim and position evidence; Exact proposition and claimed wording; Dated roster, position statements, response records and selection method; Confirmed evidence set with the eligible population written down exactly as supplied; Candidate statements with citations, URLs and dates. For each person on this roster, find dated public statements about this exact proposition. Return one cited source per statement with the date. Do not interpret the statement. Keep the received originals and earlier results alongside this step output; do not treat carried items as newly generated or checked.
Use: You
Bind each checked statement to an expert_id with eligibility_basis, statement_source_id, statement_date and the exact position passage; mark non-response, duplicate identities and ambiguous statements explicitly.
Open each underlying page yourself; a cited answer is a lead, not a bound position. Check eligibility and identity bindings against the roster and original position passages; distinguish disagreement, abstention, ambiguity and missing response. Do not infer views from affiliation, silence or private data.
Use: The methods reviewer
Assess coverage and selection bias; reconcile covered and missing respondents and the denominator from the eligible roster; reproduce every count; inspect each ambiguous position.
Use: Perplexity
Draft, from the bound evidence ledger and reconciled counts, the strongest claim wording the observed positions support, with explicit limits.
What to paste into the tool
Task: Draft consensus-claim audit with permitted claim wording. Use only the bound positions in the evidence ledger and the reconciled coverage counts. Draft the strongest claim wording the observed positions support, with explicit limits on what the supplied positions establish, keeping non-response, abstention, duplicates and ambiguity separated. Do not treat agreement as proof of factual truth. Keep the received originals and earlier results alongside this step output; do not treat carried items as newly generated or checked.
Use: The methods reviewer
Check the wording against the bound positions and counts; keep, edit or withhold it; where the denominator does not support it, the wording is withheld.
Check the wording reflects the selection method and does not treat agreement as proof of factual truth; confirm the check before the audit is treated as complete.
Agreement is not treated as proof of factual truth; the scope stays published literature; the methods reviewer approves.
Fix the eligible population
Open Smart Citations
Bind positions to roster
Reconcile, reproduce counts
Draft the claim wording
Reviewer keeps or withholds
Use: You
Have ready: the proposition, claimed wording, dated roster, position statements, response records and selection method. Write down the eligible population exactly as supplied.
Use only the defined, supplied eligible population.
Use: scite
For roster members with published papers on the proposition, open Smart Citations to see whether the findings were supported, challenged or discussed by later research.
What to paste into the tool
Task: Consensus claim and position evidence; Dated roster and selection method; Confirmed evidence set with the eligible population fixed; Published positions with citation signals and linked source sentences. For each eligible roster member with a paper on the exact proposition, search by paper title and author. Open the matching paper and its Smart Citations; record the member ID, paper title, exact relevant passage, source link and whether the displayed citation signal is supporting, contrasting or mentioning. Keep the signal separate from the member's own stated position. Mark unlocated papers and members without locatable publications as gaps; do not count a citation signal as a survey response. Retain the received source packet alongside this output. Do not send, publish or change records.
Use: You
Copy the linked sentences as attributable passages; bind each published position to an expert_id with statement date; flag ambiguity, duplicates and members with no statement.
Smart Citations reflect published citing papers, not private or undocumented views; members without locatable publications stay explicit as missing. Check eligibility and identity bindings against the roster and passages; separate disagreement, abstention, ambiguity and missing response.
Use: The methods reviewer
Reconcile covered and missing respondents and the denominator from the eligible roster; reproduce every count; inspect each ambiguous position.
Use: scite
Draft the strongest wording supported by the observed published positions, keeping the published-literature scope explicit, each claim linked to its source sentence.
What to paste into the tool
Task: Draft consensus-claim audit with permitted claim wording. Use only the bound published positions and the reconciled coverage counts. Draft the strongest claim wording the observed published positions support, keeping the published-literature scope explicit, and link each claim to its specific source sentence. Keep non-response, abstention, duplicates and ambiguity separated; do not treat agreement as proof of factual truth. Keep the received originals and earlier results alongside this step output; do not treat carried items as newly generated or checked.
Use: The methods reviewer
Check the wording against the bound positions and counts; keep, edit or withhold it; where the denominator does not support it, the wording is withheld.
Check the wording reflects the selection method and does not treat agreement as proof of factual truth; confirm the check before the audit is treated as complete.
Agreement is not treated as proof of factual truth; the audit stays strictly inside the supplied roster and statements.
Upload roster and statements
Ask statements per member
Fill the matrix yourself
Reconcile, reproduce counts
Draft the claim wording
Reviewer keeps or withholds
Use: You
Have ready: the proposition, claimed wording, roster, statements, response records and selection method. Create a notebook and upload the roster, statements and records as sources.
This record does not establish that upload is permitted; confirm uploading these documents to a Google service is permitted.
Use: Gemini Notebook
Ask which statements each roster member made and where; answers quote the uploaded sources as citations.
What to paste into the tool
Task: Consensus claim and position evidence; Dated roster, position statements, response records and selection method; Notebook containing the supplied evidence; Cited statement-to-member answers. For each roster member, list the statements in the uploaded sources that are attributed to them, quoting the passages. Where no statement is attributed, say no statement found. Keep the received originals and earlier results alongside this step output; do not treat carried items as newly generated or checked.
Use: You
Open each citation in its passage; fill the roster-to-position matrix yourself: expert_id, eligibility_basis, statement_source_id, statement_date, exact_position_passage, interpreted_position, ambiguity_flag, response_status, duplicate_identity_flag.
Check eligibility and identity bindings against the roster and passages; separate disagreement, abstention, ambiguity, missing response; unconfirmed positions stay explicit.
Use: The methods reviewer
Reconcile covered and missing respondents and the denominator; reproduce every count; inspect each ambiguous position.
Use: Gemini Notebook
Draft the strongest wording supported by the observed positions with explicit limits, quoting the uploaded sources.
What to paste into the tool
Task: Draft consensus-claim audit with permitted claim wording. Answer only from the uploaded sources and the matrix built from them. Draft the strongest claim wording the observed positions support, with explicit limits on what the supplied positions establish, quoting the source passages behind each statement. Keep non-response, abstention, duplicates and ambiguity separated; do not treat agreement as proof of factual truth. Keep the received originals and earlier results alongside this step output; do not treat carried items as newly generated or checked.
Use: The methods reviewer
Check the wording against the bound positions and counts; keep, edit or withhold it; where the denominator does not support it, the wording is withheld.
Check the wording reflects the selection method and does not treat agreement as proof of factual truth, opening each quoted passage; confirm the check before the audit is treated as complete.
Best when: Positions scattered across the public web
What it does: Perplexity finds cited leads; reviewers bind, approve
Strong at: Each statement comes with a citation and link
Limit: Open-web search can miss statements
Free plan: Yes
Best when: The proposition is debated in published literature
What it does: scite shows citation signals; reviewers bind, approve
Strong at: Claims link to the specific source sentence
Limit: Corpus coverage is vendor-stated
Free plan: Paid plan needed
Best when: The audit stays inside the supplied documents
What it does: Gemini Notebook quotes sources; you build the matrix
Strong at: Every binding has a checkable quoted passage
Limit: Duplicate-identity detection is manual
Free plan: Yes, limited (50 sources per notebook)
Before you paste into any AI tool, remove any confidential information. Put it back at the end.
Deciding between Perplexity and scite for this? See the comparison.
Never paste credentials or full payment details.
Every counted position is bound to a dated attributable statement and the stated eligible roster.
Non-response, abstention, duplicate signatories and ambiguous positions stay separated.
The denominator and selection method support the proposed wording or the wording is withheld.
Agreement is not treated as proof of factual truth.
Check the result against your original inputs. Approve it before sharing or acting.