Build a useful investigation brief
Pair comparable runs
Select runs that answer the same normalized question and record task text, source set, time window, revision, constraints, and output. Exclude or label runs with different objectives. Compare the first claim or intermediate value that diverges, not only the final recommendations.
Trace decision inputs
Follow each recommendation to source observations, evidence selection, calculations, thresholds, assumptions, and criteria. Check missing artifacts, stale context, different scope, and wording changes at each boundary. Record exact input and output revisions so another reviewer can reproduce the split.
Vary one condition
Hold the shared context constant while changing one evidence item, criterion, time window, or instruction that might explain the conflict. Compare actions and confidence language. If both options remain valid under the stated objective, document the policy decision needed rather than forcing convergence.
What to carry forward
Produce a conflict investigation with matched runs, first divergence, evidence lineage, tested conditions, and decision effect. Recommend a shared-input correction, criterion clarification, or human policy choice. Do not call one recommendation correct without proving its question, evidence, and objective matched the alternative.
Keep the decision with the work.
Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.
Create an account See the product workflow