{"query":"Resolve conflicting correctness evidence","corpusVersion":"local","generatedAt":"2026-09-13T04:38:58.624Z","results":[{"blockId":"governance.conflict-resolution#resolve-conflicting-correctness-evidence","pageId":"governance.conflict-resolution","title":"Resolve conflicting correctness evidence","pageTitle":"Resolve conflicting correctness evidence","url":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","humanUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution#resolve-conflicting-correctness-evidence","markdownUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","sectionId":"resolve-conflicting-correctness-evidence","kind":"task","productArea":"governance","score":2958.771858399877,"reasons":["search_match","title_match","display_title_match","term_match","prefix_or_fuzzy_match"],"markdown":"# Resolve conflicting correctness evidence"},{"blockId":"governance.conflict-resolution#task-steps-resolve-a-correctness-conflict","pageId":"governance.conflict-resolution","title":"Task steps: Resolve a correctness conflict","pageTitle":"Resolve conflicting correctness evidence","url":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","humanUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution#task-steps-resolve-a-correctness-conflict","markdownUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","sectionId":"task-steps-resolve-a-correctness-conflict","kind":"task","productArea":"governance","score":1671.2370150524848,"reasons":["search_match","page_title_match","term_match"],"markdown":"### Task steps: Resolve a correctness conflict\n\n1. Open the affected governed object or Contribution and collect the linked Cases, expert rationale, source material, and activity history.\n2. Reconstruct each position in its strongest form: what evidence it uses, which situations it covers, and which outcome it recommends.\n3. Test whether the conflict disappears when applicability, target-system context, user segment, source authority, or time boundary is made explicit.\n4. If one position lacks required evidence, record that finding without erasing the original contribution.\n5. If both positions are valid in different contexts, split or refine the Policy, applicability, Rubric, Case, or coverage facet that conflated them.\n6. Have the accountable owner approve the resulting governed change. Expert participation alone does not approve it.\n7. Mark affected current evidence for follow-up, create new versions or a Snapshot where required, and preserve older Runs under their original boundary."},{"blockId":"governance.conflict-resolution#when-a-conflict-needs-resolution","pageId":"governance.conflict-resolution","title":"When a conflict needs resolution","pageTitle":"Resolve conflicting correctness evidence","url":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","humanUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution#when-a-conflict-needs-resolution","markdownUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","sectionId":"when-a-conflict-needs-resolution","kind":"task","productArea":"governance","score":771.0642449170782,"reasons":["search_match","page_title_match","term_match"],"markdown":"## When a conflict needs resolution\n\nResolve a conflict when experts reach different conclusions from the same Case, when governed Policies contradict one another, when a Rubric tests a broader or narrower rule than its Policy, or when new source evidence changes the standard that earlier Benchmark Versions used.\n\nDisagreement is not automatically a reviewer-quality problem. It often exposes missing context, mixed applicability, an unresolved source hierarchy, or two legitimate product boundaries that should be modeled separately."},{"blockId":"governance.conflict-resolution#success-criteria","pageId":"governance.conflict-resolution","title":"Success criteria","pageTitle":"Resolve conflicting correctness evidence","url":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","humanUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution#success-criteria","markdownUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","sectionId":"success-criteria","kind":"task","productArea":"governance","score":748.9500038743498,"reasons":["search_match","page_title_match","term_match"],"markdown":"## Success criteria\n\n- A reviewer can see the original positions and the evidence behind each.\n- The resolution names the artifact and version that changed.\n- Approval authority is explicit.\n- Downstream Case selection, standards, Snapshots, Runs, or customer-owned human review context are either still valid under a named boundary or routed for refresh.\n- The team did not manufacture agreement by deleting dissenting evidence."},{"blockId":"governance.conflict-resolution#common-failure-modes","pageId":"governance.conflict-resolution","title":"Common failure modes","pageTitle":"Resolve conflicting correctness evidence","url":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","humanUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution#common-failure-modes","markdownUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","sectionId":"common-failure-modes","kind":"task","productArea":"governance","score":747.6005576010343,"reasons":["search_match","page_title_match","term_match"],"markdown":"## Common failure modes\n\n- Voting before reconstructing the evidence and applicability behind each position.\n- Editing a downstream Rubric when the conflict belongs to a Case or Policy boundary.\n- Treating expert participation as approval of a governed object.\n- Erasing dissent or historical versions after a resolution is approved.\n\n{% example-demo title=\"Two valid refund rules\" %}\nOne specialist rejects every refund exception; another approves exceptions for enterprise accounts. Their Cases reveal that both followed different authoritative programs. The team adds an account-program applicability boundary, revises the Policy and linked Rubrics, records the approval in activity history, and creates a new Benchmark Version. The earlier expert responses remain attributable evidence for why the split was needed.\n{% /example-demo %}"},{"blockId":"governance.conflict-resolution#source-confidence","pageId":"governance.conflict-resolution","title":"Source confidence","pageTitle":"Resolve conflicting correctness evidence","url":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","humanUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution#source-confidence","markdownUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","sectionId":"source-confidence","kind":"task","productArea":"governance","score":747.293215153461,"reasons":["search_match","page_title_match","term_match"],"markdown":"## Source confidence\n\nCode-backed: Policy and Rubric detail routes expose governed objects, linked Cases, approval, and activity history, while Contribution review results preserve attributable expert learning. The evidence-reconciliation method is doctrine-backed; no single product screen automatically adjudicates every cross-object conflict."},{"blockId":"governance.conflict-resolution#object-and-state-changes","pageId":"governance.conflict-resolution","title":"Object and state changes","pageTitle":"Resolve conflicting correctness evidence","url":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","humanUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution#object-and-state-changes","markdownUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","sectionId":"object-and-state-changes","kind":"task","productArea":"governance","score":746.7476568024236,"reasons":["search_match","page_title_match","term_match"],"markdown":"## Object and state changes\n\n- Correct the **Case** when required context or the judged output is wrong.\n- Correct the **Policy** when the behavioral rule or its scope is wrong.\n- Correct the **Rubric** when the test does not faithfully check the Policy.\n- Correct **coverage facets or membership** when the benchmark over- or under-represents a boundary.\n- Create a new **Benchmark Version** when the governed evaluation boundary changes.\n- Keep an unresolved observation explicit when the source evidence cannot yet support a decision."},{"blockId":"governance.conflict-resolution#prerequisites","pageId":"governance.conflict-resolution","title":"Prerequisites","pageTitle":"Resolve conflicting correctness evidence","url":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","humanUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution#prerequisites","markdownUrl":"https://teammately.ai/docs/governance/conflict-resolution.md","sectionId":"prerequisites","kind":"task","productArea":"governance","score":737.6613128563733,"reasons":["search_match","page_title_match","term_match"],"markdown":"## Prerequisites\n\n- Name the exact Case versions, outputs, Policies, Rubrics, expert responses, and sources in conflict.\n- Preserve attribution and timestamps. Do not collapse opposing judgments into an unattributed summary.\n- Separate factual disagreement from scope disagreement and from differences in desired product behavior.\n- Identify the accountable owner for any governed object that may change."}]}