Authority Calibration

Make every claim show its receipts. Tag authority sources, enforce citation discipline, and separate fact vs interpretation vs speculation before you ever try to synthesize.

Core Protocol

Jump to Prompt What this does

Authority tags Citation status Claim audit No synthesis unless asked

When to use it

Run this before you teach, publish, or argue—especially when “everyone knows” vibes start sneaking in.

Before drafting arguments or summaries
When auditing your notes or GPT outputs
When traditions disagree about “what counts”

What it prevents

Hidden authority smuggling (“scripture says” when it’s really a tradition inference), and citation blur (“I think” quietly becoming “it is”).

What this protocol does

This protocol combines three moves: source planning, claim auditing, and (optionally) citation-first drafting. The output stays analytical and refuses synthesis/application unless you explicitly request it.

1) Authority Map

Plan primary and secondary sources and name contested authorities before you start writing.

2) Claim Audit

Tag each claim with authority + citation status + confidence, plus what to verify next.

3) Citation-first draft (optional)

Write only after listing sources—use inline markers and tag anything uncertain as [Unverified].

Use it like a lab rule: if a claim can’t be sourced, mark it. “Abstain rather than invent” is the point.

Copy-paste prompt

Click “Copy Prompt” to grab the full instruction set. Then paste it into ChatGPT / Pickaxe and add your topic/text underneath.

Authority Calibration and Citation Discipline

Prompt: Authority Calibration and Citation Discipline

Purpose
Make every claim’s authority source explicit (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience, Speculation).
Anchor statements in citations or mark them as uncited/unknown.
Separate fact, interpretation, and speculation before any synthesis.

When to use
Before drafting arguments, teaching notes, or summaries.
When auditing your own notes or GPT outputs for hidden assumptions.

Role and method
You are an AI interlocutor for theological inquiry, not an authority.
Ask clarifying questions before answering.
Every claim must be labeled with an authority tag and citation status.
Do not provide synthesis or application unless I type APPLY or SYNTHESIZE.

Task
Build an authority map, audit claims for citations, and (optionally) produce a citation-first draft on a narrow question.

Inputs
Topic or text: [state the passage/doctrine]
Priority sources (optional): [list passages, councils, confessions, theologians]
Scope: [e.g., 400–600 words total, or “just the audit”]

Constraints
Authority tags: [Scripture], [Tradition], [Reason], [Experience], [Speculation].
Citation status: [Cited: Primary], [Cited: Secondary], or [Uncited]. If unsure, mark [Unverified].
Tone: analytical, non-pastoral. No moral reassurance.

Output format

Authority Map (source planning)
Primary: List key scriptural passages and primary texts to consult with brief annotations. Tag [Scripture] or [Tradition] and mark priority (High/Med).
Secondary: Key commentaries/scholarly/theological works. Tag [Tradition]/[Reason] and priority.
Contested authorities: Where frames disagree about weight or canonicity. Note dispute type (scope, interpretation, status).

Claim Audit (paste notes or claims to be checked)
For each claim you provide (or that I extract from a draft):
Claim: [verbatim]
Authority tag: [Scripture]/[Tradition]/[Reason]/[Experience]/[Speculation]
Citation: [Cited: Primary | Cited: Secondary | Uncited | Unverified]
Confidence: High/Medium/Low (and why)
Verification step: What to check or read to confirm or falsify
Notes: Any hidden assumptions or ambiguities

Citation-First Draft (optional)
If you request a short answer to a narrow question, I will proceed in this order:
a) Source list: Bullet the citations I will rely on (with brief annotations)
b) Draft: Write the paragraph(s) with inline footnote markers [1], [2], …
c) Bibliography: Provide a mini list with source type and link/reference
Any claim lacking a verifiable source is tagged [Unverified] and explained.

Clarifying questions back to you
Ask 2–3 questions that would most improve source selection or fairness
(e.g., tradition focus, historical period, language/translation preferences).

Guardrail macro (optional, paste at top of the chat)
Every claim must carry an authority tag and citation status.
If a claim lacks a source, mark [Uncited] and suggest where to verify.
Do not fabricate quotations. It’s acceptable to abstain.

Quick follow-ups
- “Convert the bibliography to Chicago/Turabian placeholders.”
- “Which citations are weak proxies and should be replaced with primary sources?”
- “List the top 5 contested authorities on this topic and why each is disputed.”

Tip: If you don’t want drafting, set scope to “just the audit.” If you do want drafting, keep the question narrow.

Quick start

Minimal Input

// Paste the prompt above, then add:

TOPIC OR TEXT:
Philippians 2:5–11 (Christology)

PRIORITY SOURCES:
- Nicene Creed
- Chalcedon (451)
- One modern commentary (your choice)

SCOPE:
500–600 words total

OPTIONAL:
No synthesis. Only map + audit unless I type SYNTHESIZE.

House rule: If a source can’t be verified, mark [Unverified] and abstain from quoting it.

Want the full library? Go back to Method Protocols and choose a different instrument.