Philippines staffing guide · Published
A Research Brief a VA Can Fill Without Inventing Sources
Give the question, the source hierarchy, the recency rule, and the citation format before asking for research.
On this page
Research is one of the most useful VA tasks and one of the easiest to fake. A fluent summary can hide a missing source, an outdated page, or a statistic that was never in the document. The fix is a brief that makes the evidence visible and a review step that checks the citation against the claim.
Use research for bounded questions: compare three vendors, find the current filing deadline, summarize a public consultation, or collect five examples of a policy. Do not ask for an open-ended market analysis without a decision, a scope, and a definition of done. A narrow question produces a useful answer.
1. Write the question and the decision
Start with the decision the research will support. For example: should we shortlist vendor A or B for a customer support tool? Then write the sub-questions: pricing model, implementation time, data location, accessibility, and exit terms. Each sub-question needs a source type and a recency rule.
Define what would change the decision. If both vendors meet the must-haves, the recommendation may depend on cost or support. If neither meets a legal requirement, the answer is no. The brief should tell the assistant which facts are decisive and which are context. That prevents a long report that never reaches a recommendation.
2. Set a source hierarchy
Primary sources come first: the vendor's current contract, the regulator's page, the official statistics release, or the standard itself. Secondary sources such as reputable news or analyst summaries can add context but should not be the only support for a material claim. User reviews are useful for sentiment, not for legal or security facts.
Record the access date and the version for every source. A page that changes daily needs a timestamped copy or a quote. If a source is paywalled or inaccessible, say so instead of citing it from memory. The assistant should never invent a citation to fill a gap. An honest gap is easier to review than a confident error.
3. Use a claim-by-claim evidence table
For each material claim, record the exact source, the quoted passage or page, the date, and the assistant's interpretation. Keep the quote short. If the source says may and the summary says will, the review should catch the change. The table also makes it easy for the decision owner to spot a claim that lacks support.
Separate facts from recommendations. A fact is what the source says. A recommendation is what the assistant thinks the company should do. Label the recommendation and explain the tradeoff. The decision owner may disagree, but they should be able to see the reasoning without re-reading every source.
4. Review before the brief leaves the team
Check a sample of citations against the source. Look for broken links, outdated versions, and quotes taken out of context. Check that the recommendation follows from the evidence and that the limitations are visible. If the brief includes numbers, confirm the denominator and the date.
Keep the source list and the evidence table with the brief. A future reviewer should be able to update the research without starting over. When the decision is made, record which evidence mattered and what remained uncertain. That record improves the next brief more than a longer template.
Questions and operating boundary
Can a VA use AI tools for research?
Only under the company's approved tool policy. Every material claim still needs a real source that a reviewer can open.
How recent must sources be?
Set the rule per question. Regulations and prices may need the current version; background concepts may allow older sources.
What if the source is paywalled?
Say so and provide the citation and the accessible summary. Do not claim to have read material you could not access.
Source
gao.gov provides authoritative background and does not endorse this service.