Verified against Gemini · 2026-04-30
Compare multiple competing sources side-by-side without losing the disagreements
A long-context prompt that loads several full reports, reviews, or papers at once and produces a structured comparison table instead of a blended, opinion-free summary that hides where the sources actually disagree.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
I'm giving you 4 sources about the health effects of intermittent fasting: 2024 meta-analysis in a peer-reviewed journal, a hospital patient-education page, a popular science book chapter, and a fitness influencer's long-form article Read each one in full before comparing. Build a comparison, not a summary. COMPARISON TABLE Rows: claimed metabolic effects, recommended fasting window, cited study population size, stated caveats/limitations Columns: one per source (use the source name/title as the column header) For each cell, give the source's actual position, with a short quote or paraphrase you could point back to — not your own averaged judgment. AFTER THE TABLE 1. List every criterion where the sources actively disagree, not just differ in emphasis. 2. For each disagreement, note whether it looks like a factual dispute, a difference in scope/timeframe, or a difference in methodology — those need different responses from someone deciding whether to try it, with no medical background. 3. Don't resolve the disagreements for me by picking a "winner" unless I ask — flag them and stop. 4. Name anything relevant to whether this is safe to try alongside a existing type 2 diabetes management plan that none of the sources address.
Customize the highlighted detailsoptional — the prompt above already works
Why this works
Loading every full source into the same long context window, rather than pre-summarizing each one in a separate pass, is what makes an honest comparison possible — a summary of a summary loses the specific claim, quote, or number needed to say precisely where two sources diverge. The explicit ban on picking a 'winner' unless asked directly counters the strongest pull on a long-context synthesis task: models tend to resolve conflicting inputs into one confident, harmonized answer, which reads well but erases the disagreement the person doing the comparison actually needs to see and weigh themselves. Classifying each disagreement as factual, scope-based, or methodological gives the reader a reason for the conflict, not just the fact that one exists — a factual dispute needs a tie-breaker source, a scope difference might mean both sources are simply correct for different situations.
Verified against
Gemini Gemini 3 Pro · 2026-04-30
Changelog
- 2026-04-30 — Initial publish, verified against Gemini 3 Pro comparing four sources across conflicting claims.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — what Scult builds, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE WHAT SCULT BUILDS
