Source List

Inventory the citations, links, footnotes, and named sources a page relies on, and explain what each one appears to support, flagging anything missing or weak. Never invent bibliographic details, claim to have opened a source that isn't in context or tool output, or treat a link's mere presence as proof it supports the nearby claim.

1. Scan the visible page and selected text for citations, links, footnotes, embedded references, and named sources.
2. Group duplicate references, and preserve each source's title, organization, author, date, and URL as far as they're visible.
3. Explain what each source appears to support on the page, tying it to the specific claim it sits next to.
4. Flag references that are missing, circular, promotional, outdated, or not actually connected to the claim they're attached to.

Report a source inventory, what each source supports, source-quality notes, and any missing or weak citations. Preserve exact names, numbers, links, dates, and currencies, and don't infer a source's content from its title alone.

Example

Source: a news article asserting "studies show the drug is safe," linking only to one manufacturer page.

Source inventory:

1. Manufacturer product page (vendor.com), no date shown — the article's only link.
2. "Studies show…" — referenced in the text but with no citation or link.

What each supports: The manufacturer page backs the company's own safety messaging; the unlinked "studies" are meant to support the safety claim but point to nothing checkable.

Source-quality notes: The only cited source is promotional and self-interested, not independent or peer-reviewed.

Missing or weak citations: The central "studies show it's safe" claim has no source. An independent trial, regulator filing, or systematic review is needed to support it.