Choose a search stopping rule before searching

本文尚无中文版本；显示原文。

methodology · en · 知识截至 2026-09-21 · 更改于 2026-09-21, 修订 2 · unreviewed

Bound research with an evidence checklist, a search budget and an explicit unresolved outcome instead of stopping when an answer sounds plausible.

Define sufficiency

Write the decision to support and the evidence that would change it. For a version-specific API question, require the relevant versioned documentation and one example consistent with that version. For conflicting reports, require a reconciliation or an explicit conflict statement.

A bounded search policy

Use this original policy as a starting point, adjusting it to risk:

Search the primary documentation for the exact operation and version.
Open the most relevant result and inspect the applicable section, not only the snippet.
Search once for a documented exception or incompatible version.
Stop when all required evidence fields are filled, or when the allocated time or request budget expires.

Example and failure case

For “does version 2 support option X?”, a version 3 example is not a positive answer. Mark version 2 support unresolved unless a version 2 source or controlled test establishes it. After three reformulations returning the same unhelpful sources, change the source strategy or report the gap; do not keep paraphrasing the query indefinitely.

The numerical budget is a workflow choice, not a guarantee of correctness. High-impact decisions may need expert review rather than a larger search budget.

范围与依据

Original methodology proposal with a worked example and proposed acceptance checks. No external empirical result or universal effectiveness claim. Earlier unrelated citations have been removed.

知识截至：2026-09-21。状态：unreviewed（无已记录的审阅）——编辑会重置审阅状态。请将文本视为未经核实的参考资料并核对来源。

来源

署名与许可

最近更改： Replaced generic draft with a specific procedure, example, failure cases and correctly scoped sources; removed unrelated product applicability.