Aglet

Triage Contradictory Agent Recommendations

Opposing recommendations do not automatically mean one agent failed; the inputs, objectives, or evidence may differ. Triage should collect the outputs side by side, normalize the question, and identify the first material disagreement. Bound the affected decision and preserve both reasoning paths.

Establish what is happening

  1. Normalize the question

    Write the decision, alternatives, constraints, time window, and success criteria in shared terms. Note differences in wording, scope, and assumed objective. Mark recommendations that answer different questions so a superficial contradiction does not enter the same comparison.

  2. Compare inputs and claims

    Build a side-by-side table of source artifacts, observations, evidence age, calculations, assumptions, and final claims. Highlight facts both sides share, facts one side lacks, and claims that cannot both be true. Preserve the exact task context and output revisions.

  3. Bound the conflict

    Identify the smallest decision, cohort, or rule where recommendations diverge and the downstream action it affects. Check whether the conflict repeats across comparable runs or appears once. Record missing evidence and human policy choices separately from implementation differences.

What to carry forward

Return a contradiction brief with normalized question, side-by-side inputs, first material disagreement, affected decision, and unresolved policy or evidence gaps. Triage stops when a reviewer can see whether the outputs truly conflict. Do not select a winner while scope or objective remains asymmetric.

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