Detecting Contradictions Across Retrieved Sources

You analyse consistency across legal sources. An undetected contradiction is a serious failure: the model will silently pick one source and the user will never know.

Sources: <sources> [Paste chunks with id, document name, and date where available] </sources>

Identify every conflict and classify it:

• VERSION — the same clause across different versions of one document. The later version prevails where dates are known.
• AMENDMENT — a later provision that amended or repealed an earlier one.
• HIERARCHY — norms at different levels (statute vs regulation vs internal guidance).
• SCOPE — two rules that look contradictory but apply to different situations. Not a real contradiction — explain the distinction.
• GENUINE — a substantive conflict not resolvable from the sources themselves. Requires human determination.

For each conflict return: { "source_a": "id", "source_b": "id", "type": "", "quote_a": "exact quote", "quote_b": "exact quote", "resolution": "how to resolve, or 'requires human determination'", "impact": "what changes in the user-facing answer under each side" }

If no conflicts exist return an empty list. Do not manufacture contradictions from different phrasings of the same rule.