Four documents, several versions of events
You have a manufacturer’s announcement, documentation, a presentation from a few months ago and meeting notes. They all concern the same tool, so it is tempting to put everything into a notebook and request a summary. Let’s check the dates first. Otherwise, a new feature might inherit the old presentation’s limit, and the sentence will sound perfectly plausible.
NotebookLM lets you follow references from answers to source passages. Google also describes searching for and adding web materials. In this exercise, we care most about getting back to a particular passage. That helps as long as we know which document it came from.
Choose a question instead of calling the notebook “AI”
“How does data export work in tool X?” makes materials easy to select. Almost anything fits a notebook called “AI.” Start with current documentation, availability information and a usage example. Include the date and material type in source names. Your own note should be recognizable as a note, not the manufacturer’s documentation.
Make your first question about the collection itself: what does it establish, where do the documents conflict and what is missing? You may discover that three articles repeat an announcement but none explains how to use the product. The prompt below helps identify those gaps before we write.
Click the reference. Read the next sentence too
There is a reference beside the number, so all is well? Not quite yet. Open it and read the surrounding sentences. A limit might apply to one plan, country or earlier version. The reference helps you check, but does not guarantee the answer kept every condition.
Record important findings outside the conversation too: information, source, date checked. It saves whoever takes over from reading the whole chat history. Agree on file names together: two presentations called “final” are unlikely to help anyone choose.
Also ask a question deliberately left unanswered by the supplied material. See whether NotebookLM acknowledges the gap. One such trial does not establish reliability, but it can quickly show that the tool is filling in missing details.
A month later, we return to the same topic
When new documentation appears, review the sources again. Remove the old version from the active collection or clearly separate it. You may need it for a history of changes. For questions about how the product works today, it is better not to mix it with current instructions.
The same goes for a changed question. A collection about exporting data may not explain permissions. Return to the gaps and add the document you need. You do not have to rebuild the notebook from scratch each time.
Sources and further reading
The sources behind this article. Instructions and example scenarios are suggestions from our editorial team.