diff --git a/Cargo.lock b/Cargo.lock
index d00ca1f..8bd308e 100644
--- a/Cargo.lock
+++ b/Cargo.lock
@@ -1979,6 +1979,7 @@ name = "doubleo7"
 version = "0.1.0"
 dependencies = [
  "anyhow",
+ "chrono",
  "reqwest 0.13.4",
  "rig",
  "schemars 1.2.2",
diff --git a/Cargo.toml b/Cargo.toml
index 0429525..f12cc8d 100644
--- a/Cargo.toml
+++ b/Cargo.toml
@@ -14,3 +14,4 @@ tokio = { version = "1.53.1", features = ["full"] }
 toml = "1.1.4+spec-1.1.0"
 tracing = "0.1"
 tracing-subscriber = { version = "0.3.23", features = ["env-filter"] }
+chrono = "0.4.45"
diff --git a/src/deep_research/starter.rs b/src/deep_research/starter.rs
index 3d27ddc..96aa9b6 100644
--- a/src/deep_research/starter.rs
+++ b/src/deep_research/starter.rs
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
+use crate::deep_research::review::{self, Review};
+use crate::deep_research::tools::{FetchPage, SearchWeb};
 use rig::client::{AgentClientExt, Nothing};
 use rig::completion::Prompt;
 use rig::providers::ollama;
-use crate::deep_research::review::{self, Review};
-use crate::deep_research::tools::{FetchPage, SearchWeb};
 
 /// The tool-calling research loop needs to reliably decide what to search
 /// for, when a page is worth fetching, and when it has enough evidence —
@@ -37,7 +37,9 @@ fn initialize_observability() {
 pub(crate) async fn start() -> anyhow::Result<()> {
     initialize_observability();
 
-    let topic = std::env::args().nth(1).unwrap_or_else(|| DEFAULT_TOPIC.to_string());
+    let topic = std::env::args()
+        .nth(1)
+        .unwrap_or_else(|| DEFAULT_TOPIC.to_string());
 
     let report = research(&topic).await?;
 
@@ -84,17 +86,25 @@ async fn gather_findings(
     feedback: Option<&Review>,
     round: usize,
 ) -> anyhow::Result<String> {
+    let current_date = chrono::offset::Local::now().to_string();
+
     let researcher = client
         .agent(RESEARCHER_MODEL)
         .name("researcher")
-        .preamble(
+        .preamble(format!(
             "You are a meticulous research assistant. Use the search_web and fetch_page tools to \
              investigate the user's topic: run several searches with varied phrasing, fetch the \
              most promising pages, and cross-check claims across at least two sources before \
-             trusting them. Once you are confident you have enough evidence, stop calling tools \
-             and reply with a plain-text dump of every fact you gathered, the source URL it came \
-             from, and any open questions or contradictions between sources. This is raw research \
-             material for a writer, not a final report, so favor completeness over polish.",
+             trusting them. Ensure sources are up to date: the current date is {current_date}. \
+             Once you are confident you have enough evidence, stop calling tools and reply with a \
+             plain-text dump of every fact you gathered, using footnote-style citations: write each \
+             fact followed by a bracketed number like [1], then at the end of your reply list a \
+             'Sources' section mapping each number to the exact URL it came from, one per line, e.g. \
+             '[1] https://example.com/page'. Reuse the same number when multiple facts come from the \
+             same URL — do not give one URL two different numbers. Also call out any open questions \
+             or contradictions between sources, citing the footnotes involved. This is raw research \
+             material for a writer, not a final report, so favor completeness over polish.")
+                      .as_str(),
         )
         .tool(SearchWeb)
         .tool(FetchPage)
@@ -107,7 +117,8 @@ async fn gather_findings(
              You already ran a research pass on this topic. A reviewer checked it against its \
              cited sources and found it insufficient. Do more research to address the reviewer's \
              feedback, then produce an updated findings dump: carry forward what's solid, and \
-             add, correct, or better-source whatever the gaps call for.\n\n\
+             add, correct, or better-source whatever the gaps call for. Gaps include out-of-date,\
+             irrelevant, or clearly wrong information. The date is {current_date}.\n\n\
              Solid findings from the last pass — keep and build on these:\n{}\n\n\
              Gaps the reviewer found — conclusions not actually backed by their source, sources \
              that don't line up with the conclusion drawn from them, or parts of the topic still \
@@ -129,15 +140,23 @@ async fn gather_findings(
 }
 
 #[tracing::instrument(skip(client, findings), fields(gen_ai.agent.name = "writer"))]
-async fn write_report(client: &ollama::Client, topic: &str, findings: &str) -> anyhow::Result<String> {
+async fn write_report(
+    client: &ollama::Client,
+    topic: &str,
+    findings: &str,
+) -> anyhow::Result<String> {
     let writer = client
         .agent(WRITER_MODEL)
         .name("writer")
         .preamble(
-            "You turn raw research notes into a clear, well-organized report for the reader. \
-             Structure the report with headings, cite source URLs inline next to the claims they \
-             support, and call out any open questions or contradictions the research turned up. Do \
-             not invent facts beyond what the notes provide.",
+            "You turn raw research notes into a clear, well-organized report for the reader. The \
+             notes use footnote-style citations — a bracketed number like [1] after a fact, with a \
+             Sources section mapping numbers to URLs. Preserve this scheme in your report: keep the \
+             same [n] markers next to the claims they support (renumbering only if you drop unused \
+             sources), and end the report with a 'Sources' section listing every footnote number \
+             still in use next to its exact URL. Structure the body with headings, and call out any \
+             open questions or contradictions the research turned up. Do not invent facts beyond \
+             what the notes provide.",
         )
         .build();