Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.kb2b.app/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
The problem this solves
If you keep ingesting documents and transcripts into a POT, sooner or later two facts will contradict each other. Typical examples:
- An old proposal says “volume discount starts at 500 units” — a recent email says “starts at 300 units”
- A meeting mentions “the single point of contact is Carlos” — a contract says “single point of contact is Laura”
- A quarterly report says “growing 12% YoY” — the investor deck says “8% YoY”
Without management this becomes noise — kb2b would answer with low confidence or contradict itself depending on which fact got retrieved. Contradiction resolution is the formal flow for the team to decide which one stands.
How they’re detected
kb2b detects contradictions automatically as it ingests a new fact:
- For each new fact, it looks for semantically similar facts already in the POT.
- An LLM evaluates whether the relationship is:
supports, refines, derives_from, or contradicts.
- If
contradicts, an edge is created between the two facts with that relationship type.
- Each edge has a weight (0.0–1.0) indicating how strong the contradiction is (concept overlap + score divergence).
Where they appear
Contradictions show up in two places:
- Persistent banner at the top of the entire Knowledge section (
/dashboard/knowledge and sub-routes) — shows total count and per-severity. If there are no contradictions, the banner hides.
- Dedicated page at
/dashboard/knowledge/constitution — the full list, expandable, with AI Triage if there are ≥ 3.
Severities
kb2b classifies each contradiction by its weight:
| Weight | Severity | Color | Meaning |
|---|
| ≥ 0.80 | Critical | Red | High concept overlap and big score divergence — high probability of being a real, important conflict |
| 0.50 – 0.79 | Moderate | Orange | Likely contradiction worth reviewing |
| Below 0.50 | Mild | Yellow | Possible false positive or minor contradiction |
AI Triage
When there are 3 or more active contradictions, kb2b shows an automated Triage panel with Claude-powered recommendations: it groups related contradictions, suggests where to start, and summarizes the conflicts. It does not resolve for you — it only helps you prioritize.
The two-phase workflow
Resolving a contradiction has two phases, intentionally separated:
Phase 1 — STANCE (evidence) Phase 2 — RESOLUTION (decision)
───────────────────────── ─────────────────────────
Team contributes votes ────────────▶ A curator makes the final call
(editors+ can do this) (editor / admin / curator)
confirm_a / confirm_b / confirmed_a / confirmed_b /
dismiss both_valid / needs_update / dismissed
Phase 1 — Stances (all editors)
Each contradiction shows the two fact cards side by side. Under each is a set of three buttons:
- “Support this fact” (confirm_a or confirm_b depending on the side) — you vote in favor of the fact.
- “Not a contradiction” (dismiss) — you mark the edge as a false positive.
Each stance can include optional notes explaining why. Each one also triggers a score delta that propagates to the involved facts:
- Confirming a fact raises its POT Score proportional to your expertise level.
- The opposing fact drops proportionally.
Counts are shown live: “3 support A · 1 supports B · 0 dismiss”. If you change your mind, your stance is replaced (not duplicated).
Phase 2 — Resolution (editor / admin / curator)
Once there’s enough evidence, someone with permissions makes the final call. There are 5 options:
| Resolution | Meaning |
|---|
| confirmed_a | ”Fact A is correct” — raises A’s score, lowers B’s. |
| confirmed_b | ”Fact B is correct” — flipped. |
| both_valid | ”Both are valid in different contexts” — no penalty, explicitly marks them as non-contradicting. |
| needs_update | ”Documents need updating” — flag that this isn’t an epistemic decision but a maintenance task. |
| dismissed | ”Not a real contradiction” — false positive. |
contradicts → resolved_contradiction, marks who resolved and when, stores the notes, and applies the final score deltas.
Reverting a resolution
If you made a mistake or new evidence appears, the original resolver can revert their resolution. Click “Revert” on the resolved card:
- The edge goes back to
contradicts (active state).
- Previous stances are kept as history.
- The revert is recorded in the audit trail.
Only the person who resolved can revert their own resolution. Other editors can take a new stance if they disagree, but can’t overwrite directly.
Constitutional axioms and contradictions
When a Constitutional fact (POT Score 1.0) participates in a contradiction:
- kb2b shows an explicit amber warning in the UI: “This fact contradicts a constitutional axiom. Resolving against the axiom requires administrator intervention.”
- It does NOT block the resolution technically — the call stays with the responsible person.
- The warning is there so you think twice: if you’re about to tear down an axiom, the right move is to go to POT Constitution and downgrade or remove it formally with score re-propagation.
The SciPot whitepaper describes axioms as “immune to stance penalties”. In kb2b the current implementation is warning-aware, not hard-block: the UI warns you but lets the action through. If your organization needs real blocking (regulatory audit, compliance), confirm with your admin before operating on contradictions that touch axioms.
What gets logged (audit trail)
Every action on a contradiction generates an activity event logged for audit:
| Event | Who | When | What it stores |
|---|
stance_taken | userId | timestamp | stance (confirm_a/confirm_b/dismiss) + notes |
contradiction_resolved | userId | timestamp | resolution_type + notes |
| Resolution revert | userId | timestamp | return to contradicts |
Notifications
In this version kb2b does NOT send push notifications when:
- A new contradiction is detected
- Someone takes a stance on a contradiction that involves you
- A contradiction you originated or voted on is resolved
All changes are in the activity feed and visible when you visit the Knowledge section. Push notifications are on the roadmap. When NOT to use this flow
- If you find a fact extracted incorrectly (it contradicts nothing, it’s just wrong), don’t open a contradiction — use 👎 curation from the fact inspector (see Explore and discuss facts).
- If you want to discuss a fact but it doesn’t contradict another, use the Discussion tab, not this flow.
- If two facts appear to contradict but are actually about different things, resolve with
dismissed or both_valid — don’t force a binary decision where it doesn’t apply.
Permissions
| Action | Reader | Editor | Admin | Human Curator |
|---|
| View contradictions | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Take a stance | — | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Resolve contradiction | — | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Resolve touching an axiom | — | ⚠ (warning) | ⚠ | ⚠ |
| Revert your own resolution | — | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Manage Constitution | — | — | ✓ | ✓ |
