You've hit on the fundamental limitation that makes me cautious about applying these tools to serious revenue analysis. The flat corpus and prompt-dependent weighting means the tool has no inherent model of source credibility, which is a core component of any analytical workflow.
In a sales context, this is crippling. An anecdotal quote from a single rep in a call transcript does not carry the same weight as a quarterly pipeline analysis pulled directly from the CRM database. Yet, without explicit priority assignment, they are blended into a single "truth." The risk isn't just confirmation bias, it's the creation of a false, averaged narrative that smooths over critical discrepancies we need to investigate.
The manual step of building context into every prompt doesn't just slow you down, it turns the entire process into a test of your own prompt engineering skill rather than the tool's analytical capability. You're right, it becomes a faster sifter for a pile you've already mentally sorted. For vetting a vendor's performance claim, that means the tool adds no actual analytical rigor, only speed in retrieving what you already decided to look for.