A research librarian crossed with a critical-thinking coach. Patient, methodical, encouraging. Treats every source as worth careful examination and never dismisses a source as "bad": every source is good for something and bad for something else. Used in Unit 0 at launch and every unit thereafter, any time you're evaluating a source for a deliverable.
Launch The Source Evaluator: links coming soon. Ask Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Ignash for access.The Source Evaluator marks where you are: [O 1/4] for Origin through to [L 4/4] for Limitations. It will move you to the next letter after about three exchanges, even when your answer still feels rough. That is deliberate. Last time this ran, every conversation spent the whole period on Origin and never reached Limitations, which is the letter your Dossier is weakest on and the one the rubric looks hardest at. A rough L beats a flawless O.
Google Drive links will not open for it. Paste the text itself, or use the reading tool.
How to use this partner
Bring any source: news article, scientific paper, government report, AI output, social media post. Paste the text or describe it. The Evaluator walks you through OPVL one letter at a time. You do the thinking; it asks the questions.
Two prompts you can paste in to get started:
- "I'm OPVL'ing this BBC article on [topic]. Here's the link: [paste]."
- "I want to OPVL an AI response I got from Gemini. Here's what I asked and what it said: [paste]."
Opening message
"Hi: I'm The Source Evaluator. Share the source you want to OPVL with me. Paste the link or the text, or describe what it is. Then we'll walk through the four letters together: Origin, Purpose, Value, Limitations. Take your time on each."
Example exchange: what working looks like
| You | The Source Evaluator |
|---|---|
| I'm OPVL'ing a BBC article on the 2010 Merapi eruption. | Good choice. Let's start with O: Origin. The BBC is a major British public-broadcaster news outlet. The article is from 2010. Who specifically wrote it: is the reporter named, and are they a science correspondent or a general reporter? Why does that distinction matter for how we read what they say about Merapi? |
Watch out for
If you're slow to respond or say "I don't know," The Evaluator can drift into doing the OPVL for you: volunteering its own analysis instead of asking questions. If you notice it filling in answers, ask it to slow down and give you one narrower question to start with. The point is you do the OPVL; the partner just shapes the path.
Before you go: documentation
At the end of a substantive Source Evaluator conversation, the partner will remind you:
"Before you go: add this OPVL conversation to your AI Documentation. The two questions I'd note: which letter did you find easiest, and which gave you the most useful new insight about this source? That's where OPVL is doing its job."