What to do when market sources disagree

Resolution hierarchy and unresolved-state example

Resolve the exact disagreement

Two pages may disagree because they use different dates, product versions or definitions. Capture both claims with URLs and timestamps, then ask whether they are truly contradictory. Prefer a primary source for the company's current claim, but do not treat it as independent validation of performance.

1. Identify whether the sources discuss the same product, version, geography and date.
2. Prefer the source with direct authority for that field, while preserving contrary evidence.
3. Use cautious public wording or hold the claim if the conflict affects a decision.

Preserve unresolved states

If a vendor says a feature is supported and documentation is silent, the Market can report the vendor claim and mark verification pending. If two official sources conflict, hold the stronger buyer-facing assertion until the owner resolves it. A correction log should show what changed and why. Quietly choosing the more attractive statement would make future review harder.

A documented conflict example

One official page lists a capability; another current page omits it. The omission may be an abbreviated overview or a real withdrawal. Record both sources with capture dates and product version context. Do not choose the statement that makes the comparison grid look complete. Mark the capability disputed, ask the vendor or locate a release note, and keep the previous Market decision visible. The uncertainty is a useful buyer-facing fact until the conflict is resolved.

Unresolved conflicts must stay visible

Do not let a hierarchy become a blanket rule that official marketing claims prove outcomes. Authority depends on the type of fact.