Research and Source Management

Primary Source Request

Request precise data, documentation, records, or confirmation from the authoritative owner of a claim while defining format, scope, use, and deadline.

Free editable Markdown · Researchers, journalists, and editors · Updated July 30, 2026

Download Markdown

Accessible HTML preview

Blank template

The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.

Request planning

Claim or question: [What requires primary confirmation]
Responsible owner: [Organization, department, or person]
Correct contact channel: [Published email, form, or process]
Requested record: [Exact title or identifiable description]
Version or period: [Dates, release, jurisdiction]
Requested format: [Public URL, PDF, CSV, interview, or written confirmation]
Minimum useful alternative: [Narrower record or responsible referral]
Intended use: [Article, analysis, correction, or other]
Attribution proposed: [On record, named source, or agreed alternative]
Deadline and reason: [YYYY-MM-DD; explain timing]

Draft message

Subject: [Specific and neutral request]
Introduction: [Who you are and the project]
Request sentence: [One precise request]
Context: [Why this source is relevant]
Format and details: [Fields, dates, definitions, or permissions]
Privacy boundary: [Aggregate, redacted, or public material only where appropriate]
Response options: [Record, correction, referral, or unavailable]
Contact and thanks: [How to reply]

Follow-up checks

The contact is authorized and the channel is legitimate.
The request is no broader than the research question requires.
Confidential or personal information is not solicited improperly.
Intended quotation and attribution are clear.
The deadline is realistic and time zone is stated if needed.
Every response retains sender, date, attachments, and qualifications.
Silence is not treated as agreement.
The source inventory and draft reflect the final response status.

How to use this template

Identify the exact claim or question and the authoritative owner most likely to hold the answer.
Specify the record, period, fields, version, preferred format, and minimum useful alternative.
Explain intended use, attribution, permissions, privacy boundaries, and a realistic deadline.
Send through the correct channel and log acknowledgments, attachments, limitations, and follow-ups.
Store the response with source context and revise claims that remain unconfirmed.

Ask for an identifiable record

Recipients respond more effectively when they can determine exactly what is wanted. Name the document, dataset, date range, department, event, policy version, or statement requiring confirmation. Explain the project and why that source is relevant in one or two sentences. If you do not know the official title, describe its function and ask whether an equivalent public record exists. Avoid a broad demand for “all data” when a defined table, methodology note, or current policy section would answer the question.

Define format, use, and boundaries

State whether you need a public link, machine-readable table, signed confirmation, interview, or permission to quote. Explain intended publication, audience, attribution, and deadline. For data, request field definitions, collection method, update date, exclusions, license, and any suppression or privacy treatment. Do not encourage a contact to bypass controls or disclose personal information. If only aggregate or redacted material is appropriate, say so. Clarify whether on-record, background, or off-record communication is being proposed rather than assuming shared rules.

Preserve the response and follow up proportionately

Record when and how the request was sent, attachments included, acknowledgments, promised dates, and any limitations stated by the source owner. One concise follow-up that references the original request is usually more useful than repeated messages. If the material is unavailable, ask whether a public alternative, narrower extract, or responsible subject expert can be identified. Never convert silence into confirmation. Update the draft to show what was verified and what remains unknown.

See the fields in context

Fictional example: park path maintenance schedule

Alder Borough and its parks office are invented. The message outline demonstrates a narrow record request.

Question: What is the current fictional inspection interval for paved public park paths?
Request: A public link to the approved maintenance schedule in force on 2026-06-01, including revision date and responsible department.
Alternative: Written confirmation of the interval and document title if the schedule is not published online.
Boundary: The request excludes staff names, incident reports, resident details, and non-public security information.
Use: Attribute the interval to the fictional parks office and link the record in an accessibility explainer.

Frequently asked questions

What makes a source “primary”?

It is closest to the record, event, statement, data, or rule in question. Primary status does not remove the need to examine scope, method, interest, or context.

Should a request include all questions at once?

Group a small set of closely related questions, but avoid an unfocused list. A recipient should be able to identify the record and the minimum complete response.

What if the source asks to go off the record?

Pause and agree on terms before continuing. Follow your publication's policy and do not assume both parties define background or off-record communication identically.

Can no response be reported as a refusal?

Not automatically. Record accurate contact attempts and say the organization did not respond by the stated time if that wording is editorially relevant and supported.