Decide Whether the Topic Needs Research
Use research to support a specific answer. More retrieved material is useful only when it improves the accuracy and completeness of that answer.
Separate articles that need current facts from those that mainly explain a stable process. Product comparisons, pricing guides, recent changes, and specification-heavy tutorials need careful retrieval. Evergreen articles can also benefit when a specific mechanism or documented restriction matters to the answer.
Research is less useful if the brief has no clear question. Asking for everything about a broad subject can return a large collection of loosely related facts. Narrow the scope to the reader's decision, then identify which claims need evidence before generation.
For a software comparison, list the shared criteria first: workflow, research controls, revision, integration, and relevant plan limits. This helps evidence gathering support the comparison rather than produce unrelated summaries of two products.
How Deep Research Fits the Draft
Koala's current feature page describes research shaped around the topic, outline, and instructions. It documents source controls, optional citations, and an Extended research setting. The feature is listed for Professional plans and above.
Use the outline as a research map. A section about capacity should seek current allowance rules, while a section about publication should seek integration documentation. Distinct questions deserve distinct evidence rather than one general product page reused for every detail.
Research can improve the input to a draft, but it does not remove the need for an editorial judgment. The conclusion still has to match the reader's requirements and the boundaries of the evidence. A confident source summary should not become a guaranteed result.
Choose Sources and Scope
Prefer primary documentation for product capabilities and current plan terms. Use suitable specialist sources when the question concerns a technical or academic issue. Set the geography and time scope when they affect the answer. A global overview is not a reliable basis for a country-specific offer comparison.
Keep source exclusions purposeful. Removing irrelevant or low-quality results can help, but excluding every source that challenges the desired recommendation weakens the analysis. Where documentation is ambiguous, preserve that ambiguity until it can be resolved.
Prepare a short list of must-verify facts. This might include a plan restriction, the date of a feature change, or whether an integration creates drafts or immediately publishes. Those details often matter more than another paragraph of broad background.
| Article Need | Research Direction | Review Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Current pricing | Official plan and billing documentation | Date, unit, and tier |
| Product comparison | Matching capability documentation | Same criteria for both products |
| Technical explanation | Primary technical sources | Scope and qualifications |
| Stable workflow | Reliable background plus clear examples | Practical relevance |
- 01Define the decision
- 02Map claims to sections
- 03Gather suitable evidence
- 04Draft with qualifications
- 05Verify the final wording
Editorial process diagram. The sequence explains decisions; it is not a performance rating.
Check the Result Against Its Evidence
Open the sources supporting material claims. Check the exact feature, plan, unit, date, and context. If a source describes a capability as optional, the article should retain that qualification. If a citation points to a category page, find the relevant underlying document before relying on it.
Compare the table and conclusion with the evidence too. Tables compress information and can accidentally erase important distinctions. A supported paragraph does not make an unsupported table cell acceptable.
Use the fact-checking workflow to record claim, source, evidence, and correction. Keep explanations you wrote independently separate from facts attributed to documentation. This makes the next update easier and prevents repeated uncertainty.
Handle Missing and Conflicting Facts
If two sources disagree, check publication dates, product versions, and whether they describe the same plan or market. Prefer current official terms for present purchase conditions, but do not silently assume an older support article has been updated to match.
If a fact cannot be established, remove it or describe the uncertainty specifically. Avoid replacing a missing price with an estimate that looks official. You can still explain the buying decision using verified capabilities and a clearly labeled illustrative scenario.
After drafting, record unresolved issues and fix them before publication. The KoalaWriter tutorial connects this evidence check with outlining and editing. Strong research helps only when its qualifications survive into the final page.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Deep Research remove the need to fact-check?
No. Research retrieval can improve the evidence available to the writer, but the resulting claims, citations, tables, and conclusions still need review.
Which plans include it?
The current Deep Research feature page lists Professional and higher plans. Check live plan access before subscribing.
Can research help evergreen articles?
Yes, especially when the article needs documented details or a clear explanation of a mechanism. Stable subjects still require accurate evidence.
Choose the Features That Fit Your Work
Use research to support a specific answer. More retrieved material is useful only when it improves the accuracy and completeness of that answer.
Explore Koala AI