A two-question comparison
The workshop brief must identify its supported offer and separate confirmed details from unknowns.
| Question | Start with | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Which source says “two-hour planning session”? | Exact search | The target phrase is known. |
| Which instruction limits the brief to supported material? | Meaning-based search | The idea may be phrased as “use confirmed details only.” |
Exact search locates the offer wording without importing a schedule.
Meaning-based search can connect the source constraint with the brief's evidence boundary. The reader still inspects the selected words before using them.
Use both when the first result is incomplete
Begin with the method that matches what you know. If the phrase is missing, widen to related meaning. If a meaning-based result looks useful, confirm its exact words before carrying a claim into the brief.
Input: one bounded question and the permitted source set. Transformation: search, inspect, and compare. Output: cited excerpts or a clear no-match result.
Stop when the selected passage answers the question directly enough to support the intended section. Similarity alone is not a reason to include it.
What the fictional comparison shows
The synthetic workshop note shows how exact and meaning-based methods can support different questions within one brief. Neither method supplies a Saturday schedule or a price.
This approach fits a source collection with varied wording. Manual reading remains faster for the single short note in this demonstration.