Knowledge Conflict Resolution

Overview

Use this skill when two or more sources selected by the knowledge resolver disagree on a decision-relevant point. It applies the source-precedence-policy, records the resolution in the audit log, and escalates when precedence cannot settle the conflict.

When to Use

• A task's resolved context pack contains sources that disagree.
• A skill output would change depending on which source is treated as authoritative.
• Two mandatory sources (e.g. privacy vs. accessibility) appear to conflict.

When NOT to Use

• Selecting sources in the first place (handled by the resolver).
• Evaluating whether a single source can be registered (use knowledge-source-evaluation).
• Checking exposure risk of restricted excerpts (use restricted-context-check).

Core Moves

1. State the conflict precisely: which sources, which decision point, which positions.
2. Locate each source in the precedence tiers.
3. Apply precedence; record the prevailing source and the suppressed sources.
4. Re-derive the affected decision under the prevailing source.
5. If precedence does not settle it (same tier, no tie-break, mandatory-vs-mandatory, deliverable-breaking), escalate to human review.

Optional Modules

• Tier tie-break — apply, in order: authority level → scope specificity → recency → supersedes.
• Mandatory clash protocol — generate a structured review request when two mandatory sources collide.
• Suppressed-source carry-forward — preserve the lower source as context in the output, not as authority.

Activation Triggers

• Resolver flags conflicts_detected in the context pack.
• A reviewer questions which source governed a decision.
• A mandatory source is present alongside an interpretive or evidential source on the same point.

Expected Output

conflict_resolution:
  conflict_id: <uuid>
  task_id: <task-id>
  between:
    - <pack_id@version>
    - <pack_id@version>
  topic: <decision point in one line>
  positions:
    - source: <pack_id@version>
      position: <one line>
    - source: <pack_id@version>
      position: <one line>
  resolved_by: source_precedence_policy | escalation
  prevailing_source: <pack_id@version | null>
  suppressed_sources: [<pack_id@version>, ...]
  human_review_required: <bool>
  human_review_reason: <if true>
  effect_on_deliverable: <short>

Verification

• Conflict is described precisely enough that a reviewer can replay the reasoning.
• Precedence chosen matches the tier mapping in source-precedence-policy.
• Suppressed sources are preserved as context, not erased.
• Escalation fired whenever precedence did not settle the conflict.
• Escalation matches the mandatory triggers in human-review-criteria (mandatory-source conflict, regulatory risk, high-impact decision).
• The conflict record is carried forward per logs-and-handoffs-policy without exposing restricted excerpts.

Handoff Signals

• Pass the structured conflict record to the next agent, preserving restrictions per logs-and-handoffs-policy.
• If escalated, do not produce a final deliverable until review returns.

Pairs Well With

• knowledge-source-evaluation
• restricted-context-check
• feature-value-governance (and any knowledge-aware skill)

Anti-patterns

• "Splitting the difference" between a mandatory and an interpretive source.
• Dropping the lower-precedence source silently instead of preserving it as context.
• Treating recency as a primary tie-break (it is a tertiary one).
• Resolving in the skill output without writing an audit entry.