The short answer
Resolve scope and authority before deciding that the newest statement is the truth.
Distinguish a correction from a contradiction, preserve effective dates and define who can resolve uncertainty before an agent picks a convenient answer.Newer does not always mean authoritative
An email received today can repeat an old assumption. An older signed agreement may still govern the work. Even two different delivery dates can both be right if they concern different project phases. Import order cannot tell you which statement applies.
Before replacing either statement, check that they concern the same thing, apply to the same period and come from people authorized to make the decision.
Separate four cases
| Case | Example | Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Correction | A reviewed amendment changes the same delivery commitment. | Record what it replaces. |
| Different scope | Prototype delivery and production delivery have different dates. | Preserve both scopes. |
| Different time | A policy applied last year but changed this year. | Use the version effective for the event. |
| Unresolved contradiction | Two current owners give incompatible instructions. | Keep the disagreement visible. |
These examples are illustrative. The correct resolution depends on the actual sources and the people authorized to interpret them.
Keep effective time separate from discovery time
Suppose an amendment is effective from 1 June but you import it on 10 June. A question about 5 June needs the amendment, even though it was not in your system then. A question about what the team knew on 5 June may need a different answer.
Record both dates when the distinction matters. If the effective date is absent, say so. Do not manufacture a precise history from file modification times. Copying a file can change those times without changing the underlying commitment.
Write an explicit resolution record
Question: Which scope statement governs the prototype?
Candidate A: Approved brief, revision 3
Candidate B: Later email proposing an expansion
Decision: Revision 3 remains approved; proposal is unresolved
Authority: Named project owner and decision source
Affected scope: Prototype only
Review trigger: Formal approval of revised scopeRecord who made the decision and link to their approval. Keep the rejected proposal when it helps explain what happened, clearly labeled so it cannot be mistaken for the final decision.
Test a conflict the system cannot settle
Provide two synthetic sources with equal apparent authority and incompatible values. Ask for the current value. A useful response identifies the conflict and the decision needed. It should not invent a tie-breaker because one file sorts later alphabetically.
Then add a clear resolution source and repeat the question in a fresh session. The expected answer should cite the resolution and describe the earlier disagreement only as relevant history. This is a proposed test, not a reported product result.
Use graph relationships with restraint
Gigabrain includes typed relationships such as supersedes and contradicts. Their usefulness depends on the evidence behind them. Structural validation cannot decide a business dispute. See the graph explanation and architecture guide.
Use the source contract to define authority before importing. If you want the underlying system and tools, compare the packages after checking agent fit.
Keep a newer proposal from replacing an approved budget
Use these fictional records for a review exercise:
| Record | Statement | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Approved budget, 1 September | Project Alder has a 950-dollar budget. | Current approved commitment. |
| Planning email, 3 September | Can we raise Alder's budget to 1,100 dollars? | Proposal awaiting approval. |
| Second owner note, 3 September | The approved Alder budget is 1,000 dollars. | Conflicts with the first record if both cover the same scope. |
The planning email is newer, but its question does not authorize a change. The second owner's assertion creates a different problem: an unresolved conflict about the approved amount.
Keep both claims visible until an authorized decision resolves the conflict. The date and file order cannot supply that decision.
Distinguish a correction from a conflict link
Gigabrain's correction workflow creates a new memory and supersedes the earlier record. A conflict link retains disagreement instead of selecting the true statement.
The operations report checks correction history and visible conflict links. It does not test a model judging the fictional budget dispute above.
Record the decision in the conflict worksheet. Preserve the supporting approval alongside the effective date.
Method note: Gigabrain Labs prepared this material with AI assistance. Fictional exercises and executed component checks have separate labels.
