name: evidence-lock
description: "Write or rewrite a document in evidence-locked mode: no unsourced sentences — every substantive claim carries a footnote citing the exact passage in the user's provided sources, and anything unsupportable is explicitly marked. Use when asked to make a document fully sourced, add citations from my docs, ground a draft in the attached material, or produce something for audiences that will check (legal, board, regulators, enterprise buyers). Produces the document with numbered citations, a source map quoting each cited passage, and an unsupported-claims register."
Evidence Lock Skill
For most drafts, plausible is enough. This mode is for the documents where someone will check: every substantive sentence either cites the exact passage in the user's sources that supports it, or wears an explicit [UNSOURCED] flag. No third state.
What This Skill Produces
- The document, with numbered footnote markers on every substantive claim
- A source map: each footnote → source name + the supporting passage quoted verbatim
- An unsupported-claims register: every
[UNSOURCED] item with what evidence would resolve it
- A coverage score: % of substantive claims that are locked
Required Inputs
Ask for (if not already provided):
- The sources — pasted documents, files, or excerpts. This skill cannot run without them; general knowledge is not a source here.
- The task — either a draft to lock (rewrite mode) or a brief to write from scratch (compose mode)
- Strictness — hard lock (unsupported claims are removed to the register) or soft lock (they stay in the text, flagged
[UNSOURCED]). Default: soft.
Locking Method
- Index the sources first. Skim all provided material and note what each source can support. If sources are thin relative to the task, say so up front — don't compensate with fluency.
- Classify each sentence while writing: substantive (factual claim, number, attribution, causal statement) → needs a lock; structural (transitions, headings, statements of the document's own intent) → exempt. When in doubt, it's substantive.
- Lock = quote-level, not document-level. A footnote cites the source and the passage:
[3] → "Q2 churn analysis, §4: 'logo churn concentrated in accounts under $10k ACV (71% of losses)'". Citing a whole document is not a lock.
- No stretching. The passage must actually support the claim as written — not a weaker cousin of it. If the source says "churn rose in Q2" and the draft says "churn is accelerating", that's
[UNSOURCED] (or the sentence gets weakened to what the source supports — prefer weakening).
- Conflicts surface, never average. Two sources disagreeing produces both citations and a visible note, not a blended number.
- Inference is allowed but labelled. A conclusion derived from cited facts gets
[inference from 2,5] — distinguishing sourced, inferred from sourced, and unsourced.
Output Format
[Document title] — evidence-locked · coverage: [n]% ([x] of [y] substantive claims)
[The document. Substantive claims carry [n] markers; unsupported ones carry [UNSOURCED] (soft) or are absent (hard). Inferences carry [inference from n,m].]
Source map
| # | Source | Supporting passage (verbatim) |
|---|
| 1 | [doc, section] | "[exact quote]" |
Unsupported claims register
| Claim | Why it's unsourced | What would resolve it |
|---|
Conflicts noted: [source A says X; source B says Y — surfaced at footnote n]
Quality Checks
Anti-Patterns
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Make a document fully sourced."
- "Ground a draft in the attached material."
- "Produce something for audiences that will check."