Use sources and citations in Strut from import to final draft

Import only material the project may use

Open the project and add the relevant PDF, Word, text, Markdown, CSV, or spreadsheet files as sources. Use descriptive titles that identify the document and version. A folder full of vaguely named downloads becomes a retrieval problem even after import.

For scanned PDFs, check whether text extraction preserved the page you need. OCR can make an image searchable, but recognition errors remain possible. Compare important quotations, names, numbers, and tables against the visible original before using them.

Import with a purpose note: which project question the source may answer, why it is credible enough to inspect, and what kind of evidence you expect. Do not upload a search results folder and hope relevance emerges later. A smaller, intentional source set makes contradictions easier to notice and reduces the chance that a polished but peripheral document dominates the answer.

Read the source record before questioning it

Record what the document is, who produced it, its date, version, and why it belongs in the project. This short note stops a superseded policy, draft report, or unattributed upload from acquiring authority merely because search can find it.

Skim the structure yourself. Know where methods, appendices, definitions, and limitations sit. Asking a source a question is retrieval assistance, not permission to ignore how the document qualifies its own claims.

Check the record's title, author, date, edition, stable URL or identifier, and page structure before relying on it. Scans may have broken text recognition; web captures may omit tables; a revised report may share a title with the version you read. Correct the record or add a warning note. Citation accuracy begins with knowing which object is actually inside the project.

A source is useful inside a writing workspace only if the draft can still find its way back to the original page.

Ask bounded questions

Ask for a passage, comparison, or list that can be checked: ‘Where does the report define active user?’ or ‘List the stated limitations with page references.’ Avoid ‘What does this prove?’ when the question invites interpretation beyond the source.

If the answer matters, open the cited page and read around it. Confirm that the wording, population, timeframe, and certainty match. Save the useful result as a note or clip with the document name and page locator still attached.

Ask one evidence question at a time and define the acceptable response. For example: 'What reasons do the interviewees give for abandoning the process? Return the speaker, exact quotation, timestamp, and any nearby qualification.' This is stronger than 'summarise the interviews' because it protects attribution, makes omissions visible, and gives you a result that can be checked against the source.

Move evidence into notes before prose

Create a note in your own words stating what the source allows you to claim. Keep exact quotations marked and preserve the page. Add your interpretation separately and name the section or question the evidence may support.

This intermediate note prevents source language from flowing invisibly into the draft and gives you a place to record limits. It also lets one source support several distinct claims without turning the draft into the only index of what you learned.

Turn the result into an evidence note with five fields: proposed claim, excerpt, locator, your interpretation, and limitation. Link the note to the source and to the section it may support. Do not paste a quotation directly into polished prose before recording its role. The note creates a review point where you can decide whether the evidence is representative, necessary, and permitted for use.

Draft with visible claim markers

When a sentence depends on imported material, add a short source key or check marker while drafting. Do not rely on remembering which of six reports supplied a number. Use Strut's project search to find the supporting note and reopen the source context when needed.

Strut does not replace a formal reference manager. Keep publication-ready bibliography data in the system required by your institution or publisher. Use the workspace for provenance and drafting; use the designated citation tool for final style and reference formatting.

Use visible markers that describe the missing work: [SOURCE], [CHECK SCOPE], [QUOTE PERMISSION], or [CURRENT AS OF DATE]. A generic highlight can mean anything and is easy to ignore. Keep markers in headings, captions, and notes as well as paragraphs. Search for every marker before review, then replace it with a citation, revised wording, or an explicit decision to remove the claim.

Run a source audit before export

Search the draft for quotation marks, figures, dates, check markers, and source keys. Open each supporting page. Confirm exact wording and verify that links, document versions, and locators are still correct. Clear markers only after the claim passes.

Export the finished document in the needed format and keep the source log or verification note with the project. If a reviewer questions a claim later, the answer should be a page you can open - Not a search you hope to reproduce.

Audit in both directions. For every factual claim, locate supporting evidence. For every citation, confirm that the cited source is used accurately and still belongs. Then check that bibliography details match the record and that public links reach the intended version. This second direction catches orphan citations left after revision and sources attached to a paragraph whose claim has changed.