Check what supports the recommendation.

Follow a citation from the discussion or open the Evidence tab. Read the source in context and check its date, location, and scope. Ask whether it supports the exact claim being made, including any numbers, conditions, and exceptions.

For a vendor comparison, an advertised feature may apply only to one plan. A published price may exclude setup, migration, or support. A source about a similar product does not automatically establish the same fact for the option you are evaluating.

Read the evidence status alongside the claim. Information you provide can be useful without having been independently verified. A forecast describes a possible future; an assumption fills a gap in the comparison.

Check whether a claim is supported, contradicted, or unresolved. If a source is unavailable or its relevance is unclear, treat that as a gap to investigate. Several participants repeating the same source does not create several independent confirmations.

Read the Verdict together with its confidence explanation and unresolved questions. Confidence is not a guarantee of a successful outcome. If no confidence is assigned, do not infer one from the writing style.

Pay particular attention to decision hinges: conditions or assumptions that could change the recommendation. Ask which missing fact would affect the choice most, who can confirm it, and whether you need that answer before committing.

Use the conversation to identify a questionable claim and explain your concern. Include a better source or corrected figure when you have one. Use Challenge the Verdict if the correction affects the conclusion rather than only a minor detail.

Before recording a Human Decision, consider whether the remaining uncertainty is acceptable for the stakes. Preserve unresolved risks and conditions in the record so later reviewers can distinguish what was known from what still required investigation.