Evaluate the reliability of historical sources

I have a folder of primary and secondary sources for a Cold War arms-control paper. Send the spreadsheet named Source Inventory to Marta in History and to my supervisor, James T., for review by Thursday so they can flag any missing provenance. Before sending, confirm each row has author, date, archive or URL, a brief reliability note, and a link to the scanned image where available.

Before I share this source list with peer reviewers, make it easy for them to judge reliability: put an At-a-Glance column showing Trusted/Questionable/Needs-Check, move the provenance (archive name and accession number) into the first visible columns, surface any red flags like anonymous authors or missing dates, and color-code rows where I lack a scan.

I uploaded a digitized transcript from a private collection; the donor won't share original accession details and the archive stamp looks odd. Marta and James will rely on my judgment. What is the most defensible note I should add in the spreadsheet's reliability column, what follow-up evidence should I try to get, and what wording will protect our team if we cite it?

Over several projects I repeatedly leave provenance and reliability checks until the deadline, which then forces rushed judgments and undermines reviewer trust. How should I change my workflow and what single habit will stop last-minute provenance hunts so my source inventory is reliable by the first draft stage?