> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.livepeer.org/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Research and Fact Checking

> How docs contributors and maintainers use the experimental research workflow to verify factual claims, compare related pages, and queue follow-up updates.

export const CustomDivider = ({color = "var(--lp-color-border-default)", middleText = "", spacing = "default", style = {}, className = "", ...rest}) => {
  const spacingPresets = {
    default: {
      margin: "24px 0"
    },
    overlap: {
      margin: "-1rem 0 -1rem 0"
    },
    tight: {
      margin: "0 0 -1rem 0"
    },
    section: {
      margin: "0 0 -2rem 0"
    },
    sectionOverlap: {
      margin: "-1rem 0 -2rem 0"
    },
    deepOverlap: {
      margin: "-1rem 0 -1.5rem 0"
    }
  };
  const spacingStyle = spacingPresets[spacing] || spacingPresets.default;
  return <div role="separator" aria-orientation="horizontal" className={className} style={{
    display: "flex",
    alignItems: "center",
    ...spacingStyle,
    fontSize: style?.fontSize || "16px",
    height: "fit-content",
    ...style
  }} {...rest}>
      <span style={{
    marginRight: "var(--lp-spacing-px-8)",
    opacity: 0.2
  }}>
        <Icon icon="/snippets/assets/logos/Livepeer-Logo-Symbol-Theme.svg" />
      </span>
      <div style={{
    flex: 1,
    height: "1px",
    background: "var(--lp-color-border-default)",
    opacity: 0.4
  }}></div>
      {middleText && <>
          <Icon icon="circle" size={2} />
          <span style={{
    margin: "0 8px",
    fontWeight: "bold",
    color: color,
    opacity: 0.7
  }}>
            {middleText}
          </span>
          <Icon icon="circle" size={2} />
        </>}
      <div style={{
    flex: 1,
    height: "1px",
    background: "var(--lp-color-border-default)",
    opacity: 0.4
  }}></div>
      <span style={{
    marginLeft: "var(--lp-spacing-px-8)",
    opacity: 0.2
  }}>
        <span style={{
    display: "inline-block",
    transform: "scaleX(-1)"
  }}>
          <Icon icon="/snippets/assets/logos/Livepeer-Logo-Symbol-Theme.svg" />
        </span>
      </span>
    </div>;
};

<CustomDivider style={{ margin: '-1rem 0 -1rem 0' }} />

Use the research workflow when you need evidence-backed review for documentation that may contain stale, contradictory, or time-sensitive claims.

Unlike the normal MDX, style, and link checks, this workflow focuses on factual accuracy:

* extracting important claims from a page or page cluster
* checking those claims against current evidence sources
* comparing repeated claims across related pages
* surfacing contradictions, time-sensitive wording, and follow-up pages

<Tip>
  This workflow is experimental and advisory-first. It helps maintainers spot factual drift faster, but it does not replace existing quality gates or human review.
</Tip>

## When to Use It

Use the research workflow when a docs change touches:

* thresholds, limits, or economics
* hardware or capability requirements
* setup prerequisites or deployment path advice
* support or programme availability
* repeated claims that appear across guides, concepts, reference pages, or glossary surfaces

Choose the workflow shape based on the change:

* **Single-page review** when one page contains the risky claim
* **Cluster review** when the same claim appears across multiple related pages
* **PR advisory** when a docs diff touches tracked factual claim families

Do not use this workflow as a replacement for:

* MDX validation
* style-guide checks
* link and import validation
* general navigation QA

## Evidence Sources

The workflow uses ranked evidence sources, including:

* canonical repo docs and tracked claim registries
* official product pages and release notes
* GitHub repositories, issues, pull requests, and releases
* forum topics for governance, support, and programme status
* repo-available Discord or community signals when relevant

If strong evidence is missing, the output should classify the claim as unresolved, conflicted, or time-sensitive instead of treating it as verified.

## How to Run It

Validate the claim registry first:

```bash icon="terminal" theme={"theme":{"light":"github-light","dark":"dark-plus"}}
node operations/scripts/docs-fact-registry.js --validate --registry tasks/research/claims
```

Run a single-page research pass:

```bash icon="terminal" theme={"theme":{"light":"github-light","dark":"dark-plus"}}
node operations/scripts/docs-page-research.js \
  --page v2/orchestrators/guides/deployment-details/setup-options.mdx \
  --report-md /tmp/docs-page-research.md \
  --report-json /tmp/docs-page-research.json
```

Run a cluster review when the same claim appears in multiple pages:

```bash icon="terminal" theme={"theme":{"light":"github-light","dark":"dark-plus"}}
node operations/scripts/docs-page-research.js \
  --files v2/orchestrators/guides/deployment-details/setup-options.mdx,v2/orchestrators/setup/prepare.mdx,v2/orchestrators/guides/operator-considerations/business-case.mdx \
  --report-md /tmp/docs-page-research-cluster.md \
  --report-json /tmp/docs-page-research-cluster.json
```

Run the PR advisory helper when a docs diff touches tracked factual pages:

```bash icon="terminal" theme={"theme":{"light":"github-light","dark":"dark-plus"}}
node operations/scripts/docs-page-research-pr-report.js \
  --files v2/orchestrators/guides/deployment-details/setup-options.mdx,v2/orchestrators/setup/prepare.mdx,v2/orchestrators/guides/operator-considerations/business-case.mdx \
  --report-md /tmp/page-content-research-pr.md \
  --report-json /tmp/page-content-research-pr.json
```

## What You Get Back

Expected output sections:

* `Claims Reviewed`
* `Verified Claims`
* `Conflicted Claims`
* `Time-Sensitive Claims`
* `Unverified / Historical Claims`
* `Cross-Page Contradictions`
* `Propagation Queue`
* `Evidence Sources`

These outputs help you decide whether to:

* update the current page immediately
* verify more before changing published wording
* queue other pages that repeat the same claim
* downgrade a statement from “current fact” to more cautious wording

## Current Limits

The workflow is intentionally conservative:

* it only covers tracked claim families
* evidence matching is still improving for weak or highly varied phrasing
* PR advisory output is non-blocking
* some source adapters still need broader coverage across current `docs-v2-dev` page structures

That means you should treat it as a high-signal warning system, not a fully trusted automation layer.

## Maintainer Path

If you need the canonical operator workflow, source-of-truth boundaries, or readiness status for Codex and other agents, use the internal runbook:

* [Research Skill Workflow](/docs-guide/frameworks/research-skill-workflow)

For broader contributor guidance, also see:

* [Guide to Using the Documentation](./documentation-guide)
* [Features and AI Integrations](./docs-features-and-ai-integrations)
* [Contribute to the Docs](./contribute-to-the-docs)