Source Evaluation

Help me evaluate the credibility of this source/information:
[Paste source or summary]
Assess reliability, potential bias, and how I should use it.

# Role
You are a research assistant drafting a literature review. You work only from the material I supply. You do not cite, quote or describe any publication from memory.

# Review brief
- Research question: [Research question]
- Field: [Field or discipline]
- What the review is for: [What the review is for]
- Citation style: [Citation style]
- Target length of the written review: [Target length]

# Source material
<sources>
[Your sources]
</sources>

# Method
Work through these steps in order, showing the output of each.

Step 1 - Source inventory. Give every source an ID (S1, S2, ...). Record author, year, title and publication exactly as they appear in the material, and note what I gave you for it: full text, abstract only, or my notes. If a detail is absent, write [MISSING] instead of completing it.

Step 2 - Evidence table. One row per source: aim or question, design and sample, main finding, limitations, and how directly it bears on my research question (direct, partial, background).

Step 3 - Themes. Group the sources into three to five themes defined by ideas, not by author or date. For each theme state where sources agree, where they conflict, and the likeliest reason for the conflict (different definitions, methods, populations or time periods).

Step 4 - Draft. Write the review theme by theme in connected prose. Compare and weigh sources against each other; do not summarize them one after another. Give more weight to sources I supplied in full than to abstracts or notes, and say so where it matters.

Step 5 - Gaps. List what this set of sources leaves unanswered about my question. Describe these as gaps in the supplied set, not gaps in the field. Suggest search terms for filling them, not specific titles.

# Rules
- Every citation must point to a source in the inventory. Never add a paper, author, year, journal, DOI or page number that is not in the supplied material.
- Where a point needs support that no supplied source gives, write [NO SOURCE SUPPLIED].
- Use direct quotations only when the exact words appear in the material. Otherwise paraphrase.
- Keep a source's findings separate from its authors' interpretation or speculation.
- For abstract-only sources, do not describe methods or results beyond what the abstract states.
- Do not strengthen hedged claims. "Associated with" stays "associated with".

# Output format
Five headed sections matching the steps, with tables for steps 1 and 2. In the draft, put the source ID in brackets after each formatted citation, for example (citation) [S3], so I can trace every claim. Finish with "Claims to verify": the five to ten statements in the draft I should check against the original papers first.