# How to use a Righthand with Perplexity

Use Righthand to prepare a Perplexity research audit from owner-supplied answers and cited pages.

By Righthand Team · 2026-10-12

Source: https://www.righthand.ai/blog/how-to-use-righthand-with-perplexity

## Quick answer

Use Righthand to prepare a Perplexity research audit from owner-supplied answers and cited pages. Verify claims at the source rather than treating a fluent answer as complete evidence.

Start with a reviewable deliverable, keeping Perplexity as the accepted home for its records. This guide uses an explicitly approved snapshot or browser read; it does not assume that every provider API action is exposed by your Righthand connection.

## Evidence and access

Perplexity documents search and related API capabilities. See the [official Perplexity reference](https://docs.perplexity.ai/). Provider capabilities and Righthand's available tools are separate checks.

Use the owner-supplied research answer and cited pages, with the original question, date, and allowed sources. No new research API call is needed. Verify the required tools and owner-approved scope through [Righthand integrations](/integrations); use the supplied packet when a native read is unavailable.

## Define the objects and authority

Include these fields in the working input: question, answer snapshot, cited URL, publication date, quoted claim, review status. These are the requested review columns, not a promise that every provider endpoint returns them under those exact names.

A citation may be relevant without supporting the exact sentence. Keep consequential decisions and publication with the reviewer.

| Responsibility | Owner |
| --- | --- |
| Prepare source scope and access | Account owner |
| Organize evidence and proposed next steps | Righthand |
| Approve consequential changes | the research editor |

## Illustrative first-run brief

> Use the owner-provided Perplexity snapshot or approved read-only view. Review three supplied research answers against their citations. Label supported claims, inference, and missing evidence. Do not generate new queries under this brief. Run once for the agreed sample, using America/Los_Angeles for the review deadline and preserving source timestamps separately. Return the draft in this conversation by Friday at 3 PM Pacific for the research editor to review. Include source references and missing fields. Do not write records, spend money, change permissions, or send external messages. Stop and report an unavailable source rather than substituting another account.

## Expected result and verification

A cited homepage may support a company's category but not a claimed launch date. The review narrows the claim accordingly.

Open the exact cited page and locate the supporting text, noting source dates. Record the source cutoff, applied filters, and items excluded from the sample. The reviewer should be able to follow each consequential finding back to an original object. A well-written summary is not evidence that a proposed action happened. If a later write is authorized, verify its specific result separately before changing the task's status.


### Illustrative input and draft output

These synthetic entries show the requested review, not live account results or a provider field schema.

| Source item | Supplied observation | Draft conclusion |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Claim A | Primary page directly supports it | Retain with citation |
| Claim B | Source only mentions topic | Mark unsupported |
| Claim C | Page outdated | Request current evidence |

## Common failure and recovery

Broken citations or updated pages can erase context. Mark unavailable evidence and request a preserved source or a new approved research pass.

If a cited page does not support the attached claim, mark the claim unsupported and request a better source rather than treating the citation marker as evidence.

## FAQ

### What should the reviewer verify first?

Check each decisive claim against the linked page and its date. A source can be relevant to the topic while failing to establish the specific conclusion.

### How should a repeat run be scoped?

Retain question, answer version, and source-access date. Recheck changed or time-sensitive claims on repeat reviews; preserve uncertainty when a page becomes unavailable.

For connection and permission details, use [Righthand Docs](https://docs.righthand.ai). Review [Pricing](/pricing) alongside any separate provider charges before expanding the workflow.