Ask a checkable question first
“Make this profession realistic” is broad. Ask what a specified role could do on the story date, or which entrance a real venue then opened to the public. Date, actor and scope prevent applying present rules to the past or visitor rules to employees.
Separate real facts from fictional premises. Authors can invent a magic pass; a real institution’s public rule needs a source. Mark adaptation as this story’s premise, not a researched finding. External research differs from internal continuity.
Read originals and check independence
- Find the original issuer: an institutional notice, original document, object record or professional account suited to the question.
- Read the full page, including date, conditions and updates; a snippet is not the rule.
- Seek other sources and trace independence. Several copies of one notice remain one origin.
- Resolve differences in date, region, actor and exception before calling them contradictions.
- Leave gaps unresolved rather than inventing a citation.
Oh Story’s research method requires independent cross-checks, disagreements and confidence reporting for a full investigation. One original notice can establish what an institution announced; it does not complete a multi-source investigation or prove facts outside the notice.
Verified example: date changes the default
Suppose a fictional visitor plans to enter Beijing’s Palace Museum on 27 July 2026. An AI draft assumes Monday closure means certain refusal.
On 30 September 2026, this page checked the museum’s date-specific announcement. It announced free opening on that Monday, with a real-name reservation still required. Free did not mean unreserved, and the notice did not establish the character’s booking or staff-only access.
| Record | This check |
|---|---|
| Question | Was there a Monday exception that date? |
| Original | Museum notice dated 23 July 2026 |
| Supported | Announced free opening with reservation |
| Not supported | Personal booking, every area, backstage rights |
| Independence | One original notice, not a full cross-check |
Revise refusal based solely on Monday and establish the booking in the fiction. Research other access separately, without inventing an all-purpose staff pass to save the old plot. This is one public-statement check, not a completed investigation of the whole story.
Hand research to the writer
Record the question and story scope; supported claims with original page locations; conditions and exceptions; disagreements and next checks; and which facts or fictional adaptations the author chooses.
Do not turn “not found” into certainty or one condition into a universal rule. If research affects existing prose, identify the specific passages before choosing to retain the fact, revise the scene or establish a fictional adaptation.
Common research hallucinations
| Problem | Revision |
|---|---|
| Plausible title, missing page | Open the original; withdraw unsupported claims |
| Search snippet only | Read full conditions |
| Reprints treated as independent | Trace the shared origin |
| Today’s rule applied to another date | Check the relevant version and notice |
| Visitor rule proves staff access | Reask for the actor and preserve unknowns |
| One account settles professional detail | Distinguish experience from institutional evidence |
When tools cannot retrieve material, retain questions and gaps instead of fabricating a result to finish the draft.
FAQ
Do two agreeing websites finish verification?
Check independence, matching time and actor, and whether they support the planned action. Reprint counts do not replace original evidence; permissions or outcomes outside scope remain unknown.
Do it with the skill
Use $story-long-write to discuss research needs without drafting prose. List date, place, role and checkable questions. Read originals, cross-check independent sources and report disagreements and gaps. Separate researched facts from fictional premises without invented evidence.
Read the method: Research scope, independent sources and facts versus creation