0Pricing
Claude Architect · Lesson

Conflicting Data & Dates

Annotate conflicts; dates resolve apparent contradictions.

When Sources Disagree

In a multi-agent research system, two subagents can return facts that flatly contradict each other. One source says a company has 8,000 employees; another says 12,000. The naive move is to silently pick one and report it as truth.

That is an anti-pattern. The architect-grade answer is to annotate the conflict and preserve both claims with their provenance, so a human (or a downstream model) can adjudicate. This lesson teaches how conflicting data is surfaced, and how dates often resolve apparent contradictions that look irreconcilable at first glance.

Provenance Is the Foundation

You cannot annotate a conflict you cannot trace. Provenance means keeping a claim → source mapping for every fact: the URL or document name, the exact quote, and crucially the publication date.

Without this mapping, a contradiction is just noise. With it, you can show the user precisely where each number came from and when it was published — the raw material for resolving disagreement.

claim = {
    "statement": "Headcount is 12,000",
    "source_name": "Q4 2025 Annual Report",
    "url": "https://example.com/ar-2025.pdf",
    "quote": "As of Dec 31, 2025, we employed 12,000 people.",
    "published": "2026-02-15",
}

All lessons in this course

  1. Claim to Source Mappings
  2. Conflicting Data & Dates
  3. Aggregate Metrics Hide Failures
  4. Stratified Sampling & Calibration
← Back to Claude Architect