Scientific assistants increasingly gather evidence through tools that aggregate multiple external sources. A record list alone does not reveal whether an empty result reflects a completed search, incomplete coverage, or total upstream failure. This paper develops a failure-transparency protocol that separates record identity, request coverage, and claim support. We combine three evidence streams: an audit of eighteen dated website examples containing twenty-four displayed records across eighteen source identifiers; an exhaustive analysis of 117 abstract source-state configurations; and a small live metadata-check episode. All displayed records carry a URL and source field, but the shortened examples do not expose a per-source execution envelope, illustrating why record provenance and coverage are distinct audit properties. In the controlled enumeration, record-only and HTTP-aware policies correctly classify 28 and 31 configurations respectively; a coverage-aware reference classifies all 117 by construction. These are contract checks, not language-model performance measurements. During three read-only Crossref requests, two returned HTTP 429 while one returned a retraction-notice record, providing a concrete case in which unavailable metadata must not be interpreted as a missing publication. Fifty-two offline connector checks also passed using previously recorded responses; this does not measure current upstream reliability. Illustrated reference, dataset, literature, and archive examples motivate a three-layer reporting contract and a practical answer-level evaluation rubric. The study offers a reproducible interface-audit method, not a new retrieval model or evidence of a commercial service's superiority. Unreviewed research preprint, version 2. The author develops ScholarMuse (https://scholarmuse.ai/) and discloses a commercial interest. AI assistance supported drafting, coding and figure preparation. Historical website examples, offline replay checks, controlled state enumeration and three live requests are separate evidence streams; none establishes production reliability or commercial superiority. This deposit contains the manuscript only, without proprietary prompts, routing code or customer data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Davie Chen (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: