Disagreements & the scan

A memory that only accumulates will eventually contradict itself — and a memory that serves both sides of a contradiction with a straight face is worse than one that says nothing. Disagreements are how the record holds two claims that cannot both be true, honestly, until a person settles it.

the scan judged after landing — the same for every new statement

When a statement lands — filed by hand, distilled from a session, crawled from a source — the conflict scan reads it against what the space already holds. Genuine contradiction is its judgment to make, not a similarity threshold's: two statements about different versions can both be true, and the scan is expected to know the difference. When it finds a real clash it opens a disagreement between the two, on the record.

while it is open both keep serving — capped, and saying so

Neither side is hidden. Both statements keep serving with contested on them, and each serves at min(earned, 0.85) — the cap, computed at read. An agent sees the dispute exists; nothing pretends the question is settled.

settling a reviewer's act, with a reason, kept

A person with review standing settles it: one side is upheld, or the two are found compatible after all. The decision carries its reason and stays on both chains — including for the statement that lost, because the fact that it was once believed and then overturned is exactly what a future session needs to not relearn it.