Use AI to expand research without treating fluent text, repeated output or model confidence as verification.
Open situation →Reasoning Practice · Intermediate
Fluent text without inspectable support
An AI assistant gives a clear recommendation and names several studies, but the citations cannot be located. The team wants to use the recommendation because it sounds complete.
Your decision
What is the best next move?
Show the best first move
A. Trace every consequential claim to an inspectable independent source and mark unsupported claims as unverified.
Why this move helps
Automation bias concerns inappropriate reliance on automated output. Source tracing makes the recommendation depend on evidence that can be inspected outside the model.
Evidence still missing
- Existence and content of the cited studies.
- Whether sources support the exact claim.
- Alternative evidence or expert review for consequential decisions.
Evidence note
Automation bias is a possible lens because fluency is substituting for verification. The recommendation may still be correct, but correctness must be checked independently.
Next action
Create a claim table with verified, disputed and unsupported status.
Best first lens
Automation Bias
Use the lens to ask a better question. It does not prove that a person or team has a cognitive bias.
Other defensible lenses
The situation may have more than one explanation.
Continue the path
Situation → skill → technique → action.
You can use an AI system to expand reasoning while keeping important judgments independently checkable.
Build this skill →Separate independent evidence from repetition and generated summaries.
Run the technique →