Some things you look into once. Others you follow. A market you are watching, a company you might join, a policy area you write about, a decision you are not ready to make. The question stays open for weeks, and every so often something new arrives that shifts the picture a little.
Why a document does not hold this well
A linear document forces a choice. Keep appending to the bottom and it becomes a log nobody rereads. Keep rewriting the top and you lose the record of how your thinking changed. You want both: the current state, and the ability to check what you believed a month ago and why.
A folder of dated notes has the opposite problem. The history is preserved but scattered, and reconstructing the current picture means reading all of them in order.
What actually works
Keep one workspace for the question and let it evolve in place. New information goes on as a card, connected to what it bears on. When a card turns out to be wrong, you can still see that it was there and what replaced it. The shape of the analysis stays visible: what is settled, what is still open, what a new piece of information just moved.
The test is whether you can leave it for three weeks, come back, and pick up where you were without a reorientation session first.
How Graphia handles it
In Graphia the workspace is a canvas you return to, not a session you restart. Sources, your notes, and the AI's answers sit on the same surface and stay there. You add new material as it comes in and connect it to what it affects. The AI reads the whole thing, so a question like "what changed since last month" or "what does this new report contradict" runs against the full history, not just the latest card.
The workspace is meant to be lived in over time, not filled once and filed.