Evidence Reconciliation

Evidence Reconciliation

Use this skill when a conclusion, plan, document update, vendor comparison, operational rule, price, timeline, limit, or capability depends on a material source conflict, authority ambiguity, stale state or mismatched scope—or when unusually high factual integrity calls for that reconciliation. Multiple consistent sources alone do not require a separate workflow.

Do not use it for simple writing that has no factual or source-conflict component.

Outcome

Produce a conclusion or revision that is traceable to the right source, preserves the existing capability floor, and never turns a related fact into a different fact merely because it supports an appealing answer.

First classify the request

Before answering or editing, separate each material statement into one of these states:

• Governing current rule — the newest controlling instruction, contract, configuration, or approved decision.
• Verified current fact — directly observed account, runtime, checkout, source, or official documentation state.
• Historical source — prior plan, old document, archived observation, or superseded draft.
• Source-supported interpretation — a conclusion reasonably drawn from evidence.
• Recommendation — a proposed choice, explicitly not yet adopted.
• Assumption or unknown — a gap that needs a source, test, or a visible decision.

Never collapse these categories. A trial credit is not automatically a send limit; a vendor marketing capacity is not a chosen operating capacity; a minimum is not a recommended target; an old plan is not the current rule.

For capacity or time claims, record the relevant units, population/system boundary, limiting dimensions, operating assumptions and clock anchor. Apply sender, allowance, trial and warmup dimensions only to commercial/outbound claims, using the capacity/timeline sub-ledger in the protocol. A conclusion must satisfy every applicable limit and prerequisite.

Establish authority before synthesis

For every material conflict, identify:

1. the exact claim at issue;
2. the source that controls it today;
3. the source that conflicts or appears to conflict;
4. whether the difference is factual, temporal, semantic, or a decision change;
5. the least disruptive correction.

Within user-owned guidance and subject to higher-priority platform instructions, use this default authority order for operating decisions unless the project defines another. For empirical truth, direct evidence, method, scope and freshness control; user or document authority cannot make a false claim true:

1. the user's current explicit decision;
2. newest applicable governing source;
3. verified current live/account state;
4. primary official documentation;
5. validated historical plans and research;
6. secondary commentary, creator content, remembered context, and marketing claims.

If a newer source is less authoritative, do not silently let recency overrule control.

When a governing source contains both operating policy and dated vendor facts, follow the policy as controlling but recheck the dated vendor fact at an official or authenticated current surface before calling it current.

Build a claim ledger for consequential work

For a wide, high-stakes, or document-revision task, read the contradiction protocol completely and maintain a compact ledger before drafting. The ledger must cover every claim that can change scope, money, capacity, ownership, safety, timeline, outcome, or truthfulness.

Each claim ends in exactly one state: confirmed, conflict unresolved, superseded, proposed, conditional, or unknown. Do not write final language until each material claim has a state.

For commercial capacity, outbound, trial, or deadline claims, also maintain the capacity/timeline sub-ledger in the protocol. Do not combine mutually exclusive operating paths (for example, fresh versus pre-warmed) into one timeline or capacity statement.

Answer without compliance bias

Do not agree just because the user proposes a number, interpretation, or solution. Do not reject it reflexively either.

When the user's statement is correct, say why and cite the controlling evidence. When it is inaccurate, state the exact correction plainly, including whether the error came from a prior assistant response. When evidence is mixed, state the controlling rule and the decision needed to change it.

Use short, direct wording:

The current rule is X. Y is a different metric/source. Z can be proposed later, but it is not established yet.

Never use vague agreement such as “yes, exactly” when the evidence supports only part of the statement.