How-to guide

Resolve disagreement

Compare conflicting claims, correct transcription errors, record challenges, and update review states without erasing history.

Use the Conflicts workspace to compare competing source claims and record what an analyst concludes. A judgment does not erase the source assertions or make the structural conflict disappear. It adds a sourced claim about one of those assertions and changes the conflict’s review state.

Review the conflict

  1. Open Conflicts and select a conflict from the queue.
  2. Confirm that the dossier says Conflict active and inspect the detection rule beneath the title. If the conflict is unexpected, review the predicate’s settings before judging the source claims.
  3. Under Original assertions, select each participating claim in turn.
  4. Compare its exact wording, source, evidence locator, capture time, and provenance in the inspector at the right.
  5. Use Explore relationships when nearby facts would help explain the disagreement. Added neighbors provide context; they do not change which assertions participate in the conflict.
Conflict dossier showing three original assertions, active conflict and review-state badges, and the analyst judgment form
The conflict condition and its review state are separate. Recording a judgment changes the review state while the conflict remains active.

Record an analyst judgment

  1. Under Add analyst judgment, confirm the analyst identity. Use Change in settings if the effective identity is not the person performing the review.
  2. Choose the relationship that expresses the conclusion: supports, disputes, or contradicts.
  3. Choose the source assertion that the judgment targets.
  4. Leave Source as Analyst review, or choose the appropriate review source when another option is available.
  5. Enter a rationale that explains the evidence and reasoning behind the judgment.
  6. Choose Add judgment assertion.

Confirm that the queue now says Judgment recorded, the original assertions remain unchanged, and the dossier still says Conflict active. The new judgment is an append-only assertion with its own provenance.

Correct a source assertion only when it was transcribed incorrectly or fails to represent its source. Leave Conflicts, open that assertion, and use Edit from its provenance inspector. Do not rewrite a correctly captured claim merely because another source is more persuasive.

Finish and revisit the review

Choose View report to check that the report distinguishes Current condition from Review state and includes the participating claims, citations, judgment rationale, and transaction trail. Copy or export the report when you need to share the analysis.

If a later source claim changes the conflict membership, Claimframe marks the conflict Needs re-review while preserving the earlier judgment. Review the new evidence and add another judgment; the revision is appended rather than replacing the earlier review.