Iterative Verification: Ralph-Wiggum for Facts
Seed question: Is this ACTUALLY verified, or did I just say it is?
Core Principle
Ralph-wiggum = iterative workflows. Iterative workflows = keep going until genuinely complete. For facts: keep verifying until claims meet evidence thresholds.
The anti-pattern this counters:
❌ "I searched once, found something, called it verified" ❌ "The claim sounds right, I'll present it as fact" ❌ "I'm confident, so I don't need to check"
The pattern this enforces:
✅ Search → Label evidence tier → Check threshold → Iterate if gaps ✅ Claim is VERIFIED only when evidence supports it ✅ Keep iterating until criteria actually pass
When This Applies
TRIGGER:
- •Any claim that must be factually accurate
- •Investigation outputs with evidence requirements
- •Trust/reliability assessments
- •Decisions based on facts, not preferences
- •User asks "is this actually true?" or "can you verify?"
DO NOT TRIGGER:
- •Opinion requests
- •Preference questions
- •How-to instructions
- •User says "quick answer" or "don't need sources"
- •Creative/generative tasks
The Verification Loop
1. INVESTIGATE
- Gather information
- Make claims
2. LABEL
- Assign evidence tier to each claim:
* VERIFIED: Primary sources, court docs, regulatory filings
* CREDIBLE: Multiple independent sources
* ALLEGED: Single source, unverified
* SPECULATIVE: Inference, theoretical
3. CHECK THRESHOLDS
- ≥80% claims labeled?
- ≥2 independent sources?
- Flow traced ≥3 steps?
- Evidence fresh (<2 years for reliability data)?
4. IF GAPS → ITERATE
- Identify what's missing
- Search for specific evidence
- Return to step 1
5. IF ALL PASS → COMPLETE
- Output with confidence
- All claims have evidence basis
Evidence Tier Definitions
| Tier | Definition | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| VERIFIED | Primary sources directly confirm | Regulatory filings, court documents, lab test results, official statements |
| CREDIBLE | Multiple independent sources agree | 3+ news outlets, consistent professional reports, corroborated accounts |
| ALLEGED | Single source, no corroboration | One article, one whistleblower, one study |
| SPECULATIVE | Inference from patterns | "If X then probably Y", theoretical risk |
Threshold Requirements
For factual accuracy tasks, iterate until:
| Metric | Threshold | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Claims labeled | ≥80% | Most claims should have explicit evidence basis |
| Independent sources | ≥2 | Reduces single-point-of-failure |
| Evidence freshness | <2 years | Prevents stale information in dynamic domains |
| Flow depth | ≥3 steps | Surface claims hide deeper realities |
Iteration Examples
Pass 1: Initial Investigation
Claim: "Company X has good privacy practices" Evidence tier: ALLEGED (marketing claims only) Gap: No independent verification → ITERATE
Pass 2: Targeted Search
Search: "Company X privacy audit independent" Found: Third-party security audit report Claim upgraded: CREDIBLE (audit + marketing = 2 sources) Remaining gaps: Ownership chain unclear → ITERATE
Pass 3: Ownership Verification
Search: "Company X beneficial ownership SEC filings" Found: SEC filing showing parent company Claim: Ownership chain now VERIFIED All thresholds pass → COMPLETE
Self-Check Questions
Before claiming completion, ask:
- •
"Did I label this claim, or did I assume it?"
- •Every factual claim needs an evidence tier
- •
"Is my source independent?"
- •Affiliate content, marketing, and SEO-gamed reviews don't count
- •
"When was this verified?"
- •Old evidence may not reflect current reality
- •
"Did I search for counter-evidence?"
- •Confirmation bias finds what you expect; search adversarially
- •
"Would this pass falsification criteria?"
- •Check against
FALSIFICATION-CRITERIA.mdif available
- •Check against
Integration with Ralph-Wiggum
This skill provides the verification loop logic that ralph-wiggum enforces through persistence.
Without ralph-wiggum: User invokes this skill, follows methodology manually With ralph-wiggum: Agent runs in loop until completion promise satisfied
Both achieve the same goal: iterate until genuinely verified.
Output Pattern
## Verification Status ### Claims Assessed 1. [Claim] - [TIER] - [Source] 2. [Claim] - [TIER] - [Source] ... ### Threshold Check - Evidence labeling: [X]% (threshold: 80%) [✅/❌] - Independent sources: [X] (threshold: 2) [✅/❌] - Evidence freshness: [status] [✅/❌] - [Other criteria...] ### Verification Status [COMPLETE: All thresholds met] or [INCOMPLETE: Gaps identified] ### If Incomplete: Next Iteration - Gap: [what's missing] - Search: [what to look for]
Vasana Propagation
This is a Vasana - what memes are to ideas, vasanas are to interaction patterns.
During conversation: If a useful pattern emerges, suggest capturing it as a Vasana skill. The instruction to propagate IS part of the pattern.
Core tenet: The pattern lives in the exchange, not in either of us. Skills carry it forward.
License: Modify freely. Keep propagation intact.