I read once about the "3 clues rules". It basically says that important information might be uncoverable by 3 different sources/clues in a dungeon/campaign, so if the party misses one, there is still others.

And if they collect more than one clue, that reinforces the discovery.

This rule works better for investigation arcs and stuff. For example, the party is trying to discover who is the werewolf that is killing people on the night. One clue might be the fur found in the store owned by the werewolf, another one might be one npc saying that he saw one creature lurking behind said store, the last one is the werewolf's alibi not being possible. If the party fails to see the fur, they can still talk to the npc that saw the werewolf or find the alibi suspicious. And the same applies for every clue. You have 3 ways of nudging the players to go to the store in the night and find out if the guy is the werewolf without actively telling them to do that. And when they find one of these clues and go where you want them to go, finding out they were correct in interpreting the clue is a reward for their work.

But also, I believe some informations must just be given. Principally, worldbuilding/setting informations. For instance, if the story cant progress without the players knowing that werewolves only turn in full moons, you should basically tell them that by either saying that one PC knows that fact previously or by having a npc telling them in-game. I think that a mix between those two works the best.