# A six-step decision ladder for conflicting public timeline sources

Public sources often disagree because they describe different states, use different clocks, or update at different times. This checklist keeps a review reproducible without pretending that every conflict has been resolved.

1. Define the claim. Write the smallest statement being checked; do not compare whole articles as if each were one claim.
2. Separate the clocks. Record event time, publication time, last-updated time, and the time you observed the page.
3. Preserve provenance. Keep the original source URL and label mirrors, summaries, translations, and reposts separately.
4. Compare source state. Note whether each source is available, redirected, corrected, archived, or withdrawn.
5. Classify the outcome. Use supported, contradicted, unresolved, or stale. A source quality label is not proof that a claim is true.
6. Recheck material conclusions. Return to the original source before relying on a translated or summarized version.

A useful audit record contains the claim, source URL, four timestamps, observed state, conflict classification, and reviewer note. Preserve uncertainty when the evidence does not justify a stronger conclusion.

Method and transparency reference: https://timeline.snamibo.com/zh/methodology/?utm_source=paster_sh&utm_medium=reference&utm_campaign=ts_2026q3_trust&utm_content=source_conflict_ladder_a

Published by Timeline Brief, a brand project that organizes publicly accessible sources into a bilingual change stream. Original sources remain the verification point.
Publication date: 2026-08-11