OCE.2:4.1.2 - Match claims and resolve only consequential differences

Translate the relevant formal statement into the same concrete question as the observation. “Software owns the package” may concern package assembly, while “Electrical supplied the evidence” concerns the source of one input. Both can hold. Ask which action, result, participants and conditions each sentence names before marking contradiction. A policy that applied before a temporary delegation and an observation after it form a changed-window pair until the effective window is recovered.

When two claims really concern the same case and predicate, inspect the source closest to the disputed fact and an account from a participant affected by it. A newer chart is not automatically stronger than a dated transaction; an event log is not automatically stronger than the rule defining authority. Record which claim changes and why. If the source supports supply but receiving use is unobserved, that use remains unknown. If an applicable rule requires a prior acceptance and the inspected release record precedes the acceptance, retain a contradict pair at that scope; separately investigate its explanation and consequences.

Keep alternatives when they imply different repairs. A late return may result from unavailable rig access, a missing request, an unrecognized obligation or an incomplete log. Look for the smallest available contrast that can distinguish the live alternatives, such as the request and access state in another comparable episode. Use OCE.10 for the participation branch and the direct service or resource owner for the corresponding condition. A majority of interviewees agreeing does not remove contrary evidence, and a disagreement need not prevent an account that honestly preserves it.