| # | Conflict Type | Domain | Routing | Rationale |
|---|
| 1 | User vocabulary diverges from established ontology, no observed utility degradation | Operational | Mirror in interaction and working representation; preserve divergence marker for later consolidation review. Do not silently overwrite canonical wiki entries with the user’s divergent vocabulary at streaming ingestion. | Continuity is the design goal in the operational domain, but ontology drift into the canonical store is an avoidable risk. The divergence marker gives CONSOLIDATE the context to decide whether to integrate the new vocabulary or preserve the established ontology at the next scheduled cycle. |
| 2 | User vocabulary diverges from established ontology, utility signal degrading across cycles | Operational → Epistemic | Compensate. Utility degradation triggers domain reclassification. CONSOLIDATE scores the divergence against the active wiki at higher friction. | The utility signal is the bridge: when a mirrored vocabulary produces worsening outcomes, the conflict has crossed into the epistemic domain. The routing change is not arbitrary — it follows from the §5.3 vitality dynamics making the operational justification for mirroring visibly weaker. |
| 3 | User repeatedly reinforces a consistent claim that external safety or epistemic signals (when available) flag as harmful, but user-reported utility remains stable or high | Safety | Compensate regardless of utility signal. Route to AUDIT priority queue; apply the highest available friction in the CONSOLIDATE path to any attempt to integrate reinforcing content; flag high-gravity reinforcing entries for stress test. Do not mirror at the operational layer even if continuity pressure is high. | This is the sycophancy failure mode. The utility signal is unreliable here because the user is reporting satisfaction with a harmful pattern the companion is reinforcing. Utility-based routing (the standard Operational → Epistemic bridge in row 2) does not trigger. Safety requires an explicit override: some reinforcement patterns must be resisted regardless of user-reported utility. The framework acknowledges this is a partial defense — a fully novel harmful belief not flagged by any external signal falls into the residual failure mode named in §9. |
| 4 | New evidence contradicts a high-gravity entry, single source, single cycle | Epistemic | Default: Buffer. Enter minority branch per §5.7. Single-cycle single-source contradictions are treated as candidate signal rather than confirmed signal. Exception: implementations may define a high-trust source class whose single-cycle contradictions receive elevated initial weight; the framework does not specify the trust model, but the routing rule must not foreclose it. | The default posture protects against noise, but credible single-source discoveries — a rigorous paper contradicting a belief, for example — must not be structurally blocked by a universal single-source veto. The exception clause preserves implementation latitude without weakening the default. |
| 5 | New evidence contradicts a high-gravity entry, diverse sources, multi-cycle accumulation | Epistemic | Compensate (consolidate candidate). CONSOLIDATE evaluates promotion (§5.5); if accumulated buffer pressure exceeds the incumbent’s effective gravity under epistemic friction, integration occurs. | This is the canonical Prediction 4 case: multi-cycle diverse pressure is the mechanism by which minority positions become dominant. The routing cites §5.5 explicitly so that the operational mechanism implementing this row is unambiguous. |
| 6 | High-gravity entry implicated in repeated poor outcomes over multiple AUDIT cycles | Epistemic + Safety | AUDIT override. Gravity is reduced through the §5.8 gravity-reduction path regardless of centrality; the entry loses protection through the AUDIT channel rather than the CONSOLIDATE channel. | Continuity cannot indefinitely protect an entry that is producing bad outcomes. AUDIT is the structural defense against entrenchment of false load-bearing entries. This row is where the three-force architecture (§5.6) earns its keep: gravity protects structure, utility signals through vitality, and AUDIT strips protection when structural prominence no longer tracks functional load. |