Should an annotated bibliography summarize rejected draft sources?

You generally shouldn't include summaries of rejected sources in your final annotated bibliography, as the goal is to demonstrate how your current sources directly support your refined research question. I know how frustrating it feels to have already put in the work, only to realize you have to pivot, especially when you are balancing a full-time job. Think of your bibliography like a curated guest list for a dinner party; if you invite people who don't fit the theme of the evening, the conversation loses its focus. Even if you spent hours researching those initial sources, keeping them in your final document will only blur the specific argument you are now trying to make, which might lead your supervisor to feel like you still haven't narrowed your scope enough. Instead of starting completely from scratch, treat your old summaries as a rough draft or a personal archive. You can definitely reuse the core information you already extracted, but you need to rewrite the annotations so they explicitly connect to your new, tighter research question. When you look at an old summary, ask yourself how that specific source helps answer your new focus; if it doesn't, let it go, even if the research was interesting. By stripping away the fluff and focusing only on the pieces that build your current argument, you will save yourself a lot of time while showing your supervisor that you have truly mastered the new direction of your project. You have already done the heavy lifting of reading these texts, so just focus on reframing that existing knowledge to fit your new, sharper lens.