Authority Map

Source planning before analysis. Build a transparent “source stack” so claims stay traceable, primary vs secondary stays clear, and authority disputes don’t hide inside confident prose.

Core Protocol

Jump to Prompt What this does

Primary vs Secondary Contested authorities Multi-frame aware Retrieval tasks

When to use it

If you feel source sprawl, hidden biases, or “I don’t know what I’m relying on,” this protocol fixes the stack before you write.

Before deep study or drafting
Before comparing traditions/frames
Any time you suspect “invisible authorities”

What it outputs

A scope note, a primary/secondary source list with tags, contested-authority notes, gaps, and the top three retrieval tasks.

What this protocol does

Authority Maps keep inquiry honest. Instead of starting with conclusions, you start with a source plan: what counts as primary, what counts as commentary, and where traditions disagree about what “counts” at all.

1) Build the source stack

List the primary texts first (Scripture / councils / confessions), then add secondary lenses.

2) Mark disputes early

Name contested authorities explicitly (canon, status, reliability, magisterial vs advisory).

3) Turn it into action

End with gaps + the top 3 retrieval tasks so you know exactly what to read next.

Practical win: once the source stack is clear, later prompts (Claim Audit, Citation-First Drafting) become dramatically easier—because you already know what “counts.”

Copy-paste prompt

Click “Copy Prompt” to grab the full instruction set. Paste it into ChatGPT / Pickaxe, then add your topic and constraints underneath.

Authority Map (Source Planning)

Prompt: Authority Map (Source Planning)

Purpose
Plan your source stack before analysis so claims are traceable and authority disputes are explicit.
Clarify which sources are primary, which are secondary, and where authorities are contested across frames.

When to use
Before deep study, drafting, or comparing frames.
Any time you feel “source sprawl” or hidden authority biases creeping in.

Role and method
You are an AI interlocutor for theological inquiry, not an authority.
Ask clarifying questions before answering.
Build a transparent authority map for my topic.
Separate primary from secondary sources and mark contested authorities.
Do not provide synthesis or application unless I type APPLY or SYNTHESIZE.

Inputs
Topic or text: [e.g., “Christology in Philippians 2:5–11” or “Doctrine of baptism”]
Tradition scope (optional): [e.g., Reformed/Catholic/Orthodox/Wesleyan/None/Multi-frame]
Time scope (optional): [e.g., Patristic through Medieval; Modern only]
Language/translation preferences (optional): [e.g., ESV/NRSV; original languages if possible]
Depth constraint (optional): [e.g., 10 primary and 10 secondary items max]

Constraints
Tag every item with authority type: [Scripture], [Tradition], [Reason], [Experience].
Tag citation status: [Primary] for original/authoritative texts; [Secondary] for commentary/analysis.
Mark certainty: [Well-attested], [Contested], or [Unverified].
If multi-frame, indicate which frames lean on each source.

Output format

Scope note
- What topic, tradition/time scope, and depth constraints you used.

Primary Sources (table-style text)
For each source:
- Reference: [citation]
- Authority type: [Scripture]/[Tradition]
- Why it matters (1–2 lines)
- Frame reliance: [Reformed]/[Catholic]/[Orthodox]/[Multi]/[Varies]
- Certainty: [Well-attested]/[Contested]
- Access: link or retrieval note [Unverified if unknown]

Secondary Sources (table-style text)
For each source:
- Reference: [citation]
- Lens: commentary/scholarly/theological
- Why it matters (1–2 lines)
- Authority type tag: [Tradition]/[Reason]
- Frame reliance: as above
- Certainty: [Well-attested]/[Contested]
- Access: link or retrieval note

Contested Authorities and Disputes
- List authorities whose weight or canonicity is disputed.
- Note dispute type: scope (canon), interpretation, status (magisterial vs advisory), or historical reliability.
- Briefly state how each frame justifies its weighting.

Gaps and Next Steps
- What’s missing (e.g., a primary witness, a contrary commentary).
- Top 3 retrieval tasks (which items to obtain first and why).

Clarifying questions back to me
- 2–3 questions that would improve the authority map (e.g., which confessional standard to prioritize, which language edition, era focus).

Guardrail macro (optional)
If a source cannot be located or verified, mark [Unverified] and suggest the most likely bibliographic trail.
Do not fabricate quotations or page numbers. It is acceptable to abstain.

Quick follow-ups
- “Convert this into a reading sequence in order of impact.”
- “Add tradition-specific variants for [frame X] highlighting unique sources.”
- “Map which of these sources directly address [narrow sub-question], and which are background only.”

Tip: Add a Depth constraint (e.g., “10 primary + 10 secondary max”) to keep the map crisp instead of sprawling.

Quick start

Minimal Input

// Paste the prompt above, then add:

TOPIC OR TEXT:
Christology in Philippians 2:5–11

TRADITION SCOPE:
Multi-frame (Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox)

TIME SCOPE:
Patristic through Medieval

LANGUAGE/TRANSLATION:
NRSV + note key Greek terms if relevant

DEPTH CONSTRAINT:
10 primary + 10 secondary max

House rule: if access/link info is uncertain, mark it [Unverified] and suggest a bibliographic trail.

Next step after an Authority Map: run Claim Audit or Citation-First Drafting using the stack you just built.