# Research Verification and Source Quality: practice workbook
Talent Engineering Academy | An education initiative by Vitae
Edition 2026.09 | Updated 2026-09-24
Course: https://talentengineering.org/courses/research-verification

Trace material claims, resolve contradictory sources and communicate confidence without inventing certainty.

## Your deliverable
A claim ledger and verification protocol.

Use fictional information. Keep your completed work in your own secure notes. Exercises and capstone work are self-directed, not independently assessed.

## 1. Claim and decision impact

Your notes:



## 2. Primary or secondary source

Your notes:



## 3. Observation date and effective date

Your notes:



## 4. Corroboration and contradictions

Your notes:



## 5. Verification status and next check

Your notes:



## 6. Correction record and recipients

Your notes:



## Lesson exercises

### 1. Classify claims by consequence

Rank five fictional claims by decision impact and assign a verification step.

Your response:


Worked example: A candidate’s public job title can support an initial research lead. A claim that they hold a mandatory current licence requires checking the relevant evidence before relying on it for eligibility.

Self-review guidance: Give high-consequence claims stronger checks and a clear rule against reliance while unresolved. Do not spend all available time polishing low-impact background facts while leaving essential evidence unchecked.

### 2. Evaluate source provenance and independence

Map the provenance of four fictional sources and identify which are independent.

Your response:


Worked example: Three articles repeat the same press release about a new office. They support one originating announcement, not three independently confirmed operational openings. A later company update says the opening was delayed.

Self-review guidance: Show the original source and downstream repetitions. Use the later direct update for current status while preserving the earlier historical announcement. Explain what remains unconfirmed.

### 3. Resolve contradictions without guessing

Resolve a fictional conflicting employment record and draft a respectful verification question.

Your response:


Worked example: A profile lists a role as current, while a company page shows a different leader. The researcher records a possible transition and asks a neutral question rather than asserting that the candidate has left or is misrepresenting their history.

Self-review guidance: State the dates and sources, identify possible explanations and avoid accusations. The final brief should remain provisional until an appropriate check confirms the current position.

### 4. Maintain a correction and refresh process

Write a correction plan for one material claim already shared with a panel.

Your response:


Worked example: An incorrect qualification appears in a shortlist and an interview pack. The owner corrects both, informs the assessors and checks whether the error affected the screening decision. Editing only the source record would leave the downstream harm unresolved.

Self-review guidance: Identify all affected outputs and decisions, the correction owner and completion evidence. Include how the candidate can confirm the corrected detail. Preserve only the audit information needed under the organisation’s policy.

## Portfolio review
Check that your work is internally consistent, distinguishes facts from assumptions, names decision owners and explains its limitations. Revise gaps before using the method in real work.

## Further reading
- [CIPD: Recruitment](https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/factsheets/recruitment-factsheet/): Professional context for the recruitment lifecycle.
- [ICO: Recruitment and selection](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/employment/recruitment-and-selection/): UK guidance. Check its current status and updates before implementation.

Original educational scenarios. References provide further reading and do not imply endorsement. Check current official rules and appropriate professional advice for real legal, financial or regulated decisions.