Check whether the claims actually conflict
One source may describe capacity while another reports production; one may cover a group and another a site. A more recent publication can still refer to an older observation period. Compare the exact claim, effective date and unit before deciding that the records contradict each other.
USGS annual statistics are estimates within a published commodity framework. Company disclosures may have a different product or reporting boundary, so differences should first be investigated at the definition level.
Preserve both records and the resolution
If a genuine conflict remains, record both claims with their sources and explain the decision rule used for the current view. A direct operating disclosure may answer a site question better than a general directory, but source authority is not a universal substitute for relevance. Check for explicit corrections or restatements.
Where the decision cannot be resolved, say what evidence would settle it. Do not average two incompatible status labels or production figures to create an apparently neutral answer. The uncertainty can be material to a sourcing or investment decision and belongs in the briefing.
Illustrative conflict review
A directory labels a project operating while a recent operator release describes commissioning. The release may justify a narrower current classification, but first confirm that both refer to the same site and process. Record the status correction and date while retaining the older source as historical evidence.
Resolve in this order
| Check | Possible explanation |
|---|---|
| Identity and scope | Different site, company or product |
| Metric and period | Capacity versus output or different dates |
| Correction and authority | Later revision or better direct evidence |
Your review checklist
- Match identity before comparing claims.
- Separate publication date from observation date.
- Retain conflicting sources and your reasoning.
- Escalate unresolved decision-critical gaps.
Investigate with Oreline
Use Oreline's source-linked evidence and review context to investigate disagreement rather than treating every field as equally certain. A transparent gap is more useful than a clean-looking conclusion whose conflicting inputs have disappeared.
Follow the evidence through the supply chain.
Explore Oreline’s guided investigations. No account required.
Explore the sandbox →Frequently asked questions
Should the newest source always win?
No. It may repeat an older observation or use a different scope. Relevance, underlying date and explicit corrections matter.
Can conflicting numbers be averaged?
Only with a justified analytical purpose and compatible definitions. Averaging is not a general method for resolving factual disagreement.