Conflict inspector

Two authorities claim the same fact · 10 live conflicts across 8 domains · the matrix decides the winner, an operator applies it or escalates, and nobody picks a side by hand · Thu 30 July 2026 09:12 GST

The matrix is the decision, not a reference panel. Each fact has exactly one owner at a given precedence, and the winner is computed at detection time and frozen on the conflict row with its rationale. An operator may apply the binding or escalate. Choosing the losing side is only possible by filing a time-boxed, dual-signed authority exception, which then renders next to the binding it overrides. RFID gate reads are immutable and win physical existence. They can never be outvoted, only exempted.

Sort

Conflict	Domain	Systems	Subject	Field	Both claims	Winner	Why, from the binding	Tier	AED	State	Action
CNF-0011	physical_existence	rfidvsshopify	MST-CRM-42-BLK EPC …3918 2C41 @ YAS	unit_state	rfid: read at floor 28-07 12:04 shopify: sold 26-07 18:22	rfid IMM	RFID owns physical existence at precedence 1 and the binding is immutable. A sold flag is a commercial fact and cannot deny that a tag was physically read.	T3	1,520	Open
CNF-0010	unit_custody	rfidvsops2	MSR31-07 EPC …4021 8F3C	custody	rfid: gate G1 exit 29-07 14:36 ops2: no dispatch row absent	rfid IMM	Absence of an ops2 dispatch is not a counter-claim. Custody moves to IN_TRANSIT_CUSTOMER on the read; the missing AWB becomes case DRF-0142.	T2	892	Investigating
CNF-0009	sellable_qty	shopifyvsi3	MIN-CNL-019 @ HQ_319	available	i3 ledger: 560 29-07 08:31 shopify: 550 29-07 08:31	shopify	Shopify owns storefront sellable, but its may_change array is empty, so winning does not let it write a balance. The conflict routes to drift DRF-0134 for a real event.	T2	1,800	Applied
CNF-0008	return_intent	csdvsi3	CSD-4821 3 lines, FYN01 first	reserved_qty	csd: 1 unit @ HQ_319 27-07 19:58 i3: case has 3 lines derived	csd	CSD owns return intent, so its claim wins in principle. But the payload sends only the first SKU at quantity 1 with the location hardcoded, so i3 records a conflict instead of posting a wrong hold.	T2	840	Blocked
CNF-0007	dispatch_awb	ops2vsi3	DHL 4548827193 LBA01 x2	dispatch_location	ops2: HQ_319 29-07 07:48 i3: HQ_325 29-07 07:48	ops2 p1	ops2 owns dispatch and AWB. i3 inferred the wrong site from the order's placement location, which is the shape of the 1,205 cross-location defect.	T2	306	Open
CNF-0006	physical_receipt	grnvsiwms	INF-2319 L4 PP02	qty_received	grn: 46 counted 28-07 22:10 iwms: 48 carton sum 28-07 22:14	grn p1	GRN owns receipt at precedence 1, IWMS at 2. The carton sum overstates because opening a carton into picking never decrements the carton, so its contents are counted twice.	T2	288	Awaiting approval	In queue
CNF-0005	carton_position	iwmsvsrfid	MC-4471 24 units mixed	current_zone	iwms: A3 29-07 14:01 rfid: PICKING 29-07 14:01:38	iwms p1	A 38-second timing race, not a disagreement. IWMS owns carton position; the read arrived mid-move. Replaying the IWMS event in order resolves it with no correction.	T1	0	Applied
CNF-0004	accounting_truth	netsuitevsi3	period 2026-06 on-hand value	on_hand_value	netsuite: AED 9.42M 30-06 close i3: AED 9.61M 30-06 23:59	netsuite p1	NetSuite is the accounting system of record. Any value i3 publishes is a management figure that must reconcile to it, never replace it. The AED 190K gap is 2.0% and needs a line-by-line bridge.	T3	190K	Escalated
CNF-0003	physical_existence	rfidvsiwms	JAE17 EPC …4188 91A0	location	rfid: HQ_325 dock 29-07 10:58 iwms: HQ_319 bay C 27-07 16:20	rfid IMM	The unit is at HQ_325 whatever the bin record says. Applying the binding writes a paired relocation, never a single row, because a lone row that changes location is what produced 1,205 unrecorded transfers.	T2	470	Open
CNF-0002	write_off_approval	financevsi3	WO-0588 MIN-CNL-019 x4	approval_state	finance: approved verbally 24-07 i3: no signature row expired 29-07	finance p1	Finance owns write-off approval, so their intent wins. But an approval that exists only as a conversation is not a signature, and i3 has no row to point at. The resolution re-requests it, it does not backdate it.	T3	720	Investigating
CNF-0001	po_status	i3vsops2	PO-2026-118 CIC · 1,180u	status	i3: received 17-07 19:58 ops2: in_production stale	i3 p1	i3 owns the supplier pipeline. ops2's copy is a stale mirror with no receipt event, which is missing_in_sibling rather than a dispute.	T1	0	Applied
CNF-0012	unit_custody	rfidvscsd	MIN-MRR-003 EPC …4207 3B18	custody	rfid: MCC stockroom 29-07 07:56 csd: in_transit_return 26-07 11:40	rfid IMM	The parcel arrived and was shelved without a returns scan. Custody moves out of IN_TRANSIT_RETURN, but to QUARANTINE, not to sellable stock: only a physical inspection moves it further.	T1	205	Open
CNF-0013	sellable_qty	shopifyvsi3	LBA01 @ MCC	available	i3 ledger: 84 29-07 11:04 shopify: 72 29-07 11:06	shopify	Shopify was updated from the count sheet before i3 saw the count. The stock answer belongs to DRF-0139; this conflict only records that the storefront moved first.	T2	1,840	Applied
CNF-0014	landed_cost	netsuitevsi3	PO-2026-118 unit cost	unit_cost	i3: AED 180.00 17-07 netsuite: AED 187.40 28-07 freight	netsuite p1	Freight landed after the receipt. The correction moves value with zero quantity, so it posts to cost_ledger and never touches the quantity ledger.	T2	7,400	Awaiting approval	In queue

14 conflicts · 10 live · 4 applied · every row shows the winner and the rationale copied from the binding, so the page needs no join to explain itself There is no "trust the other one" action anywhere in this table. That is deliberate.

Worked example · CNF-0011

Shopify says the unit is sellable. A gate read says it left the building four days ago. This is the conflict that decides whether the authority matrix means anything.

immutable winner

Measure for MST-CRM-42-BLK at YAS	Before	After	How it changed
on_hand	33	33	Unchanged. The unit is still owned, so it is still on hand.
sellable	33	32	Derived. Nobody wrote 32. IN_TRANSIT_CUSTOMER is not a sellable stock type, so the sum changed on its own.
floor_sellable	12	11	Derived, same mechanism, scoped to the shop floor.
committed	4	5	Derived. The unit is owed to a customer.
available	29	27	Derived as sellable minus unposted holds. Note it moved by 2, not 1, because a hold expired in the same pass.
owned_qty	33	33	Unchanged. Custody moved, title did not.
unit_state (EPC)	IN_STOCK	IN_TRANSIT	One unit-ledger hop, written in the same transaction as the quantity pair.

One decision, one custody change, six measures moved, zero numbers set by hand.Ledger effect: a movement pair sharing one movement_pair_id, summing to zero.

Why "RFID wins" needs a definition

A gate read establishes exactly one thing: this tag was at this antenna at this time. It does not establish sellability, ownership, condition or intent. So "RFID wins physical existence" cannot mean "RFID sets the stock number".

The binding encodes that limit as may_change = {custody, condition}. Applying it is allowed to move a unit between custody states and condition states. It is structurally incapable of writing a derived measure.

This is the same principle that keeps a carrier status string from crediting stock: a claim moves units to a state that is present, owned and not sellable. It never invents sellable stock, and it never does nothing.

What happens next

CNF-0011 is T3 on immutability

Winner: rfid · precedence 1
Immutable: Yes
May change: custody, condition
Tier: T3 immutable_authority
Signatures: 2, from different humans
Reversible: Yes, by a further pair
Downstream: opens a drift case if the sold order has no matching dispatch
Confidence: 0.96 · display only

The confidence figure is shown and ignored. It comes from the same matcher that produced the conflict, and letting it choose its own reviewer means an over-confident matcher approves its own errors.

Authority matrix

12 domains · 10 systems · versioned, because the answer changes across phases

2 immutable1 exception active

Domain	Owner and precedence	Measure	May change	Rationale, shown verbatim on every conflict	Effective
order_existence	shopify p1	none	existence, status	An order exists because Shopify says so. i3 never mints or voids an order.	2026-08-01
sellable_qty	shopify p1 i3 p2	sellable	nothing	Shopify owns what the storefront promises. i3 owns the derivation. Winning this domain does not permit writing a balance, which is why the array is empty and the conflict routes to drift.	2026-08-01
dispatch_awb	ops2 p1	none	status	ops2 owns dispatch, AWB and carrier events. i3 consumes them and never guesses a dispatch site from the order.	2026-08-01
return_intent	csd p1	committed	custody	CSD owns why a customer is sending something back and which case it belongs to. It does not own whether the parcel arrived.	2026-09-01
physical_receipt	grn p1 iwms p2	on_hand	existence, condition	The counted receipt wins over a carton sum, because opening a carton into picking does not decrement the carton and the sum therefore overstates.	2026-10-01
carton_position	iwms p1	none	status	IWMS owns which bin a carton is in. A read that arrives mid-move is a timing race, resolved by replay.	2026-12-01
physical_existence	rfid p1 IMM	on_hand	custody, condition	Immutable. A gate read proves a tag was at an antenna at a time. Nothing outvotes it. It also proves nothing else, so it may only move custody or condition, never a derived measure.	2027-01-01
unit_custody	rfid p1 IMM ops2 p2	committed	custody	Immutable. Whose hands a serial is in is settled by the last read. A carrier status string is evidence at weight 0.60 and can never by itself credit sellable stock.	2027-01-01
po_status	i3 p1	incoming	status	i3 owns the supplier pipeline end to end. A sibling's copy is a mirror, and a stale mirror is missing data rather than a dispute.	2026-10-01
write_off_approval	finance p1	owned	condition	Finance owns whether value may leave the balance sheet. An approval that exists only as a conversation is not a signature and cannot be backdated into one.	2026-08-01
landed_cost	netsuite p1 i3 p2	none	value	Value moves in cost_ledger, a second hash-chained journal, because a cost revision changes value with zero quantity. It may never travel through the quantity ledger. Exception AUX-0001 active until 12-08: i3 wins for the June close only, while the freight bridge is built.	2026-11-01
accounting_truth	netsuite p1	none	nothing	NetSuite is the accounting system of record. Every valuation i3 publishes is a management figure that must reconcile to it, never replace it. i3 cannot change an accounting fact, only report a difference.	2026-08-01

Two domains have may_change empty. Winning them lets a system be believed and changes nothing in the ledger, which is the correct outcome when the disagreement is about a derived number or about somebody else's book.

Decision tiers

Value, quantity, reversibility, immutability

T1
Rule applies itValue at or under AED 150, reversible, no immutable authority on the losing side, and a replay resolves it. The rule signs and the conflict closes with an audit row, never silently.
T2
One humanAED 151 to AED 5,000, reversible. One signature from role >= manager plus the feature flag. The requester may never be the signer.
T3
Two different humansOver AED 5,000, irreversible, an immutable authority on the losing side, an authority exception, or a cross-book disagreement with NetSuite. Finance plus ops_manager, or admin.

Authority exceptions

The only way to act against the matrix

Ref	Domain	Prefers	Scope	Expires	State
AUX-0001	landed_cost	i3 over netsuite	period 2026-06	12-08	Active
AUX-0002	dispatch_awb	ops2 over i3	3PL_ARAMEX	13-08	Pending
AUX-0000	physical_receipt	iwms over grn	HQ_325	expired 18-07	Expired

An exception is scoped to a domain and optionally a SKU or location, always time-boxed, always justified, and always dual-signed. It renders next to the binding it overrides so nobody reads the matrix and gets the wrong answer.

No exception may be filed against an immutable binding for the purpose of denying a gate read. AUX-0002 is permitted because dispatch_awb is not immutable.

Conflicts by domain · 30 days

Which facts two systems keep arguing about. A domain that argues constantly is an integration contract that is not written down.

61 total

Immutable domainDerived measure, routes to driftPhysical, correctable5 return_intent conflicts, one cause: the reservation payload sends one SKU at quantity 1.

How they resolved · 30 days

61 conflicts by resolution action. Nothing is closed by an operator preferring the losing side.

0 side-picks

The 5 voids each named a detector to retune, which is why the false-positive rate fell from 14% to 8% this month.

Conflict types and what each one means

Six types, because "they disagree" is four different problems with four different fixes

Type	What it actually is	Resolution shape	Live
value_mismatch	Both systems have a value for the same field and they differ. The commonest and the least interesting.	Apply the binding, then a correction if the losing side is i3	4
missing_in_i3	A sibling has a fact i3 never received. Usually a lost webhook, occasionally a topic that was never emitted.	Replay from events_raw, or open a case if the event is unrecoverable	2
missing_in_sibling	i3 has a fact the sibling does not. Often a stale mirror rather than a dispute.	Fan out through the outbox; no ledger effect	0
timing_race	Both are right, in different instants. The classic false conflict.	Replay in event order, no correction, no signature	0
authority_overlap	Two systems both believe they own the fact, usually because the contract was never written down.	Apply precedence, then fix the contract upstream	2
immutable_contradiction	A gate or handheld read disagrees with a system that does not own physical existence.	Apply the binding. There is no other option short of a scoped exception.	2

v2 has four of these six. The two it is missing are the two that carry the most weight: authority_overlap, which is the only type whose real fix is upstream rather than in the data, and immutable_contradiction, which is the type where an operator must not be offered a choice.

The rule this page enforces

The matrix decides. A human applies or escalates. v2 renders an 11-domain authority matrix in the right rail and then puts Trust INV2 and Trust ops2 side by side on every row. If an operator can pick either side per row, the matrix is documentation and the two systems diverge by operator preference.

Winning is bounded. Every binding declares what a win is allowed to change. Two domains may change nothing at all: a derived measure and somebody else's book. Winning those means being believed, not being written.

Immutable means immutable. A gate read cannot be outvoted. The only route around it is a scoped, time-boxed, dual-signed exception, which is visible next to the binding for as long as it lives and then expires by itself.

Tier comes from value and reversibility. Never from the confidence of the component that raised the conflict.

State variants

Six of the eight states this page can render

Pattern library ↗

The winner column renders last. A conflict shown without its computed winner invites somebody to decide it themselves.

Empty

No system disagrees with any other.

All 12 domains agree across 10 systems. Last cross-check 09:04, 41,200 facts compared, 0 divergent. The matrix is still shown, because knowing who would win matters before anyone needs it.

View matrix Sibling health

Error

Couldn't load bindings.

The authority service returned 503. The queue is hidden rather than shown without winners, because a conflict list with an empty winner column is an invitation to guess.

Error id cnf-77b41e · 30-07-2026 09:06:44 GST

Service health

Zero-filter

No conflicts match.

3 filters are hiding all 14.

type: timing_racesystem: grntier: T3

Permission

You can read conflicts but not apply bindings.

Applying a binding posts a ledger effect, so it needs role >= manager plus the conflict_apply feature. Filing an exception needs admin plus a second signature.

apps.i3.role = viewer · features = [read]

Request access Who can do what

Gate-blocked

Two bindings are not yet effective.

physical_existence and unit_custody become effective on 2027-01-01, when GATE-6 closes. Until then RFID conflicts are detected and shown but cannot be applied, and the winner column reads provisional.

4 immutable contradictions held provisional · GATE-6 in shadow, day 3 of 7