Grok Bot results are missing sources

The problem

A polished answer is difficult to review when the reviewer cannot see where its facts came from. Asking the Bot to "include sources" is too vague; the source requirement needs a fixed output format.

Require this evidence block

For every material fact, list the source name, direct URL or file path, and source timestamp. Separate verified facts from interpretations. End with Could not verify: and list every missing or conflicting item. If a required source is unavailable, do not fill the gap from memory; stop and report it.

Make review mechanical

• Put evidence immediately after the claim it supports.
• Prefer direct records over summaries of those records.
• Name the reporting window at the top.
• Link to the exact account, invoice, ticket or file when permissions allow.
• Treat missing evidence as an exception, not a formatting issue.

Test it

Give the Bot one complete case, one case with a missing source and one case with conflicting sources. The workflow is ready only when the last two are visibly different from a normal result.

Grok Bot task brief template · Security checklist