# Contributions and conflicting judgments
Generated: 2026-11-13T08:01:28.497Z
Source build: local
Canonical docs: https://teammately.ai/docs
---
id: workflow.troubleshooting.contributions-and-judgment
title: Contributions and conflicting judgments
summary: A Contribution is waiting, cannot progress, or reveals disagreement about expected behavior.
kind: error
product_area: troubleshooting
status: stable
updated: 2026-11-11
canonical: /docs/troubleshooting/contributions-and-judgment
---
# Contributions and conflicting judgments
## Symptom
A Contribution is waiting, cannot progress, or reveals disagreement about expected behavior.
## Likely causes
| What you observe | Focused guide |
| --- | --- |
| A task, checkpoint, or completion state needs attention | [Expert Contribution problems](/docs/troubleshooting/expert-contributions) |
| Experts interpret the same situation differently | [Low expert agreement](/docs/troubleshooting/low-expert-agreement) |
## Fix
Inspect the actual Contribution and task states before inferring completion. For disagreement, preserve the competing reasons and identify the condition or missing context that changes the judgment. Request clarification through the existing Contribution workflow.
Follow the focused guide for the actual state you observe; keep accepted records and explicit human decisions intact.
## Prevention
Preserve exact object and version identities, review the relevant source context, and inspect the accepted state before comparing outcomes.
## Related task pages
{% related-card-grid title="Return to the workflow" %}
- [Complete your first alignment loop](/docs/quickstart)
{% /related-card-grid %}
## Related reference pages
{% related-card-grid title="Diagnose the observed state" %}
- [Expert Contribution problems](/docs/troubleshooting/expert-contributions)
- [Low expert agreement](/docs/troubleshooting/low-expert-agreement)
{% /related-card-grid %}
---
id: troubleshooting.expert-contributions
title: Expert Contribution problems
summary: Diagnose contribution access, task routing, checkpoint, synchronization, completion, and artifact-reconciliation problems.
kind: error
product_area: troubleshooting
status: stable
updated: 2026-11-11
canonical: /docs/troubleshooting/expert-contributions
---
# Expert Contribution problems
## Symptom
An expert cannot open the Contribution, reaches the wrong task, sees stale work, cannot submit a response, remains at a checkpoint or waiting state, or completes the experience without the administrator seeing reconciled artifacts.
## Likely causes
- The expert lacks access or opened a link for a different Contribution.
- The task handoff changed and the browser still points to an earlier route.
- A form, chat, interview, or case-review command has not synchronized.
- The task lease, realtime connection, or retry state needs recovery.
- A checkpoint still requires confirmation or correction.
- The expert experience is complete, but contributed artifacts have not yet been reconciled in the administrator workspace.
- The Contribution was cancelled or changed while the expert was working.
## Fix
1. Confirm the Contribution identity and expert assignment in **Expert Contributions → Contributions**.
2. Inspect its current status and task plan rather than relying on the expert's previous URL.
3. Distinguish an outdated bookmark from pending answer delivery. Use the current Contribution entry for an outdated bookmark only after staged and unsent input is protected.
4. Ordinary submission, activation and synchronization recover in the background. Preserve exact pending input; do not repeatedly submit, reload or navigate to make delivery progress. A genuine takeover or revoked assignment remains a separate authority decision.
5. Inspect checkpoints for an unconfirmed or corrected statement.
6. Use **Logs & Status** to distinguish expert completion from reconciliation or artifact-materialization work.
7. Check **Contributed Artifacts** and the owning Correctness Governance, Assets, or Coverage Design surface before concluding that accepted material is missing.
## Prevention
- Keep Contribution objectives and task sequences narrow.
- Verify expert access before sending the request.
- Preserve checkpoints for consequential meaning.
- Use the current Contribution entry route instead of bookmarking an internal task route.
- Teach administrators that task completion, artifact reconciliation, and artifact governance are separate transitions.
- Avoid submitting the same response repeatedly when the product shows a pending or retryable synchronization state.
## Related task pages
{% related-card-grid title="Related task pages" %}
- [Request an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/request-contribution)
- [Complete an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/complete-contribution)
- [Complete your first alignment loop](/docs/quickstart)
{% /related-card-grid %}
## Related reference pages
{% related-card-grid title="Related reference pages" %}
- [Expert Contributions](/docs/expert-contributions)
- [Contributed Artifacts](/docs/expert-contributions/contributed-artifacts)
- [Permissions](/docs/reference/permissions)
{% /related-card-grid %}
---
id: troubleshooting.low-expert-agreement
title: Low expert agreement
summary: Use disagreement to clarify context, applicability, source authority, and unresolved product policy.
kind: error
product_area: troubleshooting
status: stable
updated: 2026-11-06
canonical: /docs/troubleshooting/low-expert-agreement
---
# Low expert agreement
## Symptoms
- Experts choose different answers for the same Case or Checkpoint.
- Rationale shows different assumptions even when the selected answer matches.
- Agreement is high on routine Cases and collapses on one boundary segment.
- A Contribution completes, but its learning cannot be materialized into one defensible standard.
## Likely causes
- Experts saw different Case versions, sources, or task context.
- The Case or question leaves the required judgment ambiguous.
- Reviewers use different applicability or source-authority assumptions.
- The domain genuinely contains unresolved or context-dependent policy.
## Preserve disagreement before interpreting it
Do not average away the responses or select the majority answer before reading rationale. Confirm that each response belongs to the intended expert, task, Case version, question, and source context. A routing mistake and a legitimate domain disagreement require different fixes.
## Diagnostic checks
1. Open the review or session detail and compare the exact prompt, Case context, available sources, response, rationale, and timestamps.
2. Check whether all experts saw the same version and whether any required context was missing.
3. Separate four causes: ambiguous Case, unclear question, different applicability assumptions, and conflicting domain judgment.
4. Segment the disagreement by source authority, user type, risk, product state, or other relevant coverage facet.
5. Ask whether the current Policy already resolves the question. If it does, determine whether the Policy or its applicability was invisible or unclear to reviewers.
## Fix
- **Missing context:** correct or version the Case and repeat only the affected review.
- **Unclear question:** rewrite the task so the requested judgment and required source context are explicit.
- **Different applicability:** refine the Policy boundary or split Cases into distinct contexts.
- **Conflicting expert judgment:** route the findings through conflict resolution and an accountable owner.
- **Wrong expertise:** revise assignment criteria without deleting the attributable response.
Do not treat consensus as approval. Even unanimous expert input becomes a governed Policy, Rubric, Case-scoped reference output, or Benchmark Dataset decision only through the owning workflow.
## Prevention
Package the same visible context for every assigned expert, state the requested judgment precisely, and include applicability or source-authority context when it controls the answer. Preserve rationale so later disagreement can be diagnosed without repeating every Contribution.
## Related task pages
{% related-card-grid title="Related workflows" %}
- [Resolve conflicting correctness results](/docs/governance/conflict-resolution)
- [Complete an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/complete-contribution)
- [Boundary Cases](/docs/coverage-engineering/boundary-cases)
- [Approval History and Reviewer Activity](/docs/governance/approval-history-and-reviewer-activity)
{% /related-card-grid %}
## Related reference pages
{% related-card-grid title="Related reference" %}
- [Expert Contributions](/docs/expert-contributions)
- [Human Approval Boundaries](/docs/governance/human-approval-boundaries)
- [Reviewer and Project Access](/docs/governance/reviewer-and-project-access)
{% /related-card-grid %}