Classify the disagreement before resolving it
A source conflict asks what the evidence supports. A fit disagreement asks which choice serves the intended reader. A consequence disagreement asks what could happen if the team chooses one path. A preference dispute concerns taste within an already supported boundary.
Record the disputed statement, each position, the cited source, the consequence of each option, and the person responsible for the decision. Do not merge the positions into false agreement.
The input is a review finding that the writer contests. The output is either a sourced correction, a documented choice, or an explicit unknown. Stop when the decision needs evidence or authority that the current participants do not have.
Resolve a fabricated brief dispute
In the fixed workshop job, the first brief says Saturday sessions are available. The writer argues that the sentence is plausible. The reviewer points out that the source contains no schedule.
Evidence settles the current version. The corrected brief removes the Saturday sentence, and the checkpoint keeps schedule and price unanswered. The record preserves the disputed position and the source boundary.
This synthetic example demonstrates a disagreement record. It does not predict a business result.
Escalate only the decision that remains
This method fits disagreements that can be stated, sourced, and assigned. It fails when authority is unclear, private considerations cannot be shared with the reviewer, or a domain expert must judge consequences outside the team's knowledge.