Conflicting Source Table¶
Template — instantiates Source Provenance Triangulation
Keeps contradictory sources visible by listing the claim, source positions, possible explanations, and unresolved questions.
The strongest pull in any write-up is toward a clean story, and the easiest way to get one is to quietly pick a winner among sources that disagree. Conflicting Source Table is the template that resists exactly that: for each contested claim it holds a row that records every source's position, the candidate explanations for the discrepancy, and the questions still open — without forcing a resolution. Its defining move is deliberate non-closure: it is built to keep disagreement standing and legible rather than to reconcile it, so a contradiction is preserved as a first-class fact of the record instead of being smoothed into a false consensus. Where a narrative would choose, the table refuses to, and marks the claim contested until the evidence — not the deadline — resolves it.
Example¶
A newsroom is reporting on how many people were displaced by a sudden factory closure. The company's statement says "about 120 roles affected." A leaked internal spreadsheet lists 210 names. Two laid-off workers describe a whole night shift, roughly 80 people, that neither figure clearly includes. Under deadline, the temptation is to print one number and move on.
Instead the reporters build a conflicting-source table. One row, the claim "number displaced." Columns for each source's position (company: ~120; document: 210; worker accounts: a night shift possibly uncounted), for possible explanations (the 120 may count only full-time roles; the 210 may include contractors already gone; the night shift may be double-counted or omitted from both), and for the open questions (does the company figure include contractors? does the spreadsheet post-date the final cuts?). Each source also carries a contested confidence mark. The published piece can now say, honestly, that estimates range from about 120 to 210 depending on who is counted, and name the specific unanswered question that would settle it — a far stronger account than a single tidy number that buries the disagreement.
How it works¶
- One row per contested claim. The unit is the claim in dispute, not the source; every source that speaks to it shares the row.
- Record each position verbatim-ish. Capture what each source actually asserts, side by side, without harmonizing the wording into agreement.
- List candidate explanations, uncommitted. Note the plausible reasons the sources differ (definition mismatch, timing, error, incentive) as hypotheses, not verdicts.
- Log the open question and a contested label. Name what would resolve the row, and mark the claim's confidence as contested until it is — the table's job is to keep the question live, not to answer it.
Tuning parameters¶
- Resolution discipline — how strongly the template forbids premature closure. Strict non-closure preserves honesty but leaves the reader with unresolved rows; looser settings allow a "leading hypothesis" note at the cost of nudging toward a winner.
- Explanation granularity — how many candidate reasons for a discrepancy you record. More candidates prevent tunnel vision but bloat the table.
- Escalation rule — which unresolved rows are flagged as blocking (a finding can't be published until settled) versus carried as acknowledged uncertainty.
- Contested-label vocabulary — simple "contested/unresolved," or a richer scale (contested-by-definition, contested-by-evidence, contested-by-incentive) that says why the sources diverge.
When it helps, and when it misleads¶
Its strength is that it makes disagreement durable and inspectable, so a reader can see exactly where an account is contested and why — the direct remedy for narratives that achieve smoothness by hiding the sources that didn't fit. It is invaluable in journalism, litigation preparation, and any review headed for contested reuse.
Its failure mode is the opposite of the tidy story: false balance, presenting two positions as evenly matched when the evidence behind them is not.[n1] A table that lists a well-documented figure and a bare assertion in adjacent columns can imply a parity that the evidence does not support, and its classic misuse is exactly this bothsidesism — treating "sources disagree" as the end of the analysis. The discipline that guards against it is to carry the contested confidence label with its reasons and to record, alongside each position, how well-grounded it actually is, so preserving a disagreement never becomes pretending the sides are equally supported.
How it implements the components¶
dissent_record— its core structure: a standing, per-claim record of who disagrees and how, kept open rather than resolved.source_gap_register— the "open question" column names, for each contested claim, exactly what evidence is missing to settle it.confidence_label— each contested claim carries a contested/unresolved mark with its reasons, so the disagreement is legible as a confidence state.
It preserves disagreement but does not adjudicate it: it does not test whether the sources are independent or agree, classify their types, or weight them into a combined judgment (corroboration_check, source_type_classification, reliability_weighting_rule — that is Triangulation Matrix, its nearest twin, which cross-tabs sources to reveal and resolve agreement where this table deliberately holds contradiction open).
Related¶
- Instantiates: Source Provenance Triangulation — supplies the standing record of contradiction that keeps a coherent narrative from hiding the claims that didn't fit.
- Sibling mechanisms: Triangulation Matrix · Audit Trail Review · Citation Lineage Review · Source Criticism Protocol · Witness / Source Comparison · Chain-of-Custody Record
Editorial Notes¶
Form Classification¶
Form family: Representation, Specification & Plan
Rationale: Keeps contradictory sources visible by listing the claim, source positions, possible explanations, and unresolved questions, making its operative form a non-executable information artifact that externalizes static or prospective structure.
Independent corroboration: The frozen evidence defines Conflicting Source Table as 'Keeps contradictory sources visible by listing the claim, source positions, possible explanations, and unresolved questions', so its operative form is Representation, Specification & Plan.
Review outcome: Independent reviewer agreement; high confidence.
Origin Attribution¶
Primary origin: History & Historiography
Origin pattern: Single lineage
Present-day reach: Multi-domain
Rationale: Historical source criticism cohered side-by-side preservation of contradictory testimony, provenance, possible explanations, and unresolved questions.
Related originating lineages:
- Library & Information Science — Cataloging and reference practice contributes structured citation, source authority, and durable linkage to claims.
Review resolution: Both reviewers agree on history_historiography as primary. Reading the source mechanism confirms that its defining operation belongs to that lineage; the final record retains library_information_science only where it materially formed the mechanism and keeps present-day application breadth separate from provenance.
Encyclopedia synthesis: The exact catalogued form synthesizes established practice rather than reproducing a single standard historical label.
Review outcome: Reconciled after independent review; high confidence.
Notes¶
[n1] False balance (or bothsidesism) is the presentation of opposing positions as more evenly supported than the evidence warrants, typically by giving equal space or framing to claims of very unequal grounding. It is the characteristic failure of any format built to display disagreement, which is why this table pairs each contested row with a reasoned, and often unequal, confidence label rather than leaving the positions to look symmetric. ↩