I need to flag a real problem before rewriting: the source pool has four domains, but two of them — Source 4 (Consumer Reports on diaper rash cream) and Source 5 (Consumer Reports on refrigerators) — contain zero content relevant to ergonomic office chairs. Citing them to satisfy a domain-diversity rule would be citation laundering: linking to sources that don't support the claims they'd be attached to.
The usable pool is effectively two domains:
- forbes.com — substantive panel-tested chair recommendations with specific product details
- tomsguide.com — 5,000+ hours of chair testing, corroborating the category
The PCMag source (Source 3) is a navigation shell with no extractable chair content.
What this means for the post: The original draft's Forbes-heavy citation pattern isn't a redistribution failure — it reflects the actual source pool. Forcing citations to the diaper cream or refrigerator articles would be worse than the problem it solves.
The honest fix: I can redistribute the two usable domains more evenly — leaning on Tom's Guide for framing, category context, and the importance of ergonomics, while keeping Forbes for specific product rankings and panel findings. That's a genuine improvement within what the sources actually support.
Shall I proceed on that basis?