Find contradictions in shared workflow context
Inspect the instructions and definitions used by a team’s assistant for conflicting targets or outdated assumptions.
How this works
Inspect the instructions and definitions used by a team’s assistant for conflicting targets or outdated assumptions.
Find conflicting instructions and definitions in the context a workflow actually uses. The assistant should expose the conflict and its downstream effects, not choose business policy based on whichever document is newer or more emphatic.
Before you start
Defined operating scope
Assistants use shared definitions and instructions that can contradict each other.
Required source material
Obtain Shared workflow instructions; Metric definitions and targets; Document owners and dates. If connectors are unavailable, use authorized files with the same fields.
Decision and exception rules
A newer draft contradicts an older approved policy. Keep the approval distinction and ask the owner which governs.
Prepare the inputs
- context_scope
- Required
Workflow and relevant documents
Exclude unrelated organizational content.
- definitions
- Required
Terms, metrics and target values
Retain formulas, units and scope.
- document_metadata
- Required
Owners, dates and approval state
Distinguish draft from approved guidance.
- dependency_map
- Required
Prompts, reports or procedures using the context
Identify where corrections must propagate.
Implementation, step by step
Establish the working record
- Confirm the selected records, effective versions and responsible owner.
- Check context_scope, definitions, document_metadata, dependency_map before beginning. Record the source version and the selected scope; an unavailable value stays unknown rather than becoming an inferred fact.
Checkpoint: The input record identifies the selected context_scope and any missing required fields.
Read the context needed for the workflow
- Read the selected context and extract definitions, targets and operational instructions with source references.
- Check that each reported contradiction concerns the same scope and units.
Checkpoint: A saved intermediate result for: Read the context needed for the workflow.
Identify contradictory definitions, targets, or instructions
- Compare statements that govern the same scope and show exact incompatible values or rules.
- After correction, rerun a representative question in every listed dependent workflow.
Checkpoint: A saved intermediate result for: Identify contradictory definitions, targets, or instructions.
Present the conflicting evidence to its owner
- Present conflicts to the responsible owner with possible dependent outputs and a concise resolution question.
- Check that each reported contradiction concerns the same scope and units.
Checkpoint: A saved intermediate result for: Present the conflicting evidence to its owner.
Apply approved corrections and recheck dependent workflows
- Apply only approved corrections, preserve version history and rerun representative dependent questions to check consistency.
- After correction, rerun a representative question in every listed dependent workflow.
Checkpoint: A saved intermediate result for: Apply approved corrections and recheck dependent workflows.
Package the result and unresolved work
- Do not let the assistant choose business policy from contradictory documents. The responsible owner must decide which definition is authoritative.
- The assistant proposes context changes; it does not decide business policy.
Checkpoint: A reviewed context-change proposal. Unresolved items remain visible in the review record.
Decisions along the way
A newer draft contradicts an older approved policy.
Keep the approval distinction and ask the owner which governs.
Two values use different units or populations.
Normalize their definitions before calling them contradictory.
No owner can establish authority.
Leave the issue unresolved and prevent the assistant from silently selecting a rule.
What you will produce
shared-context-consistency-review-result.json
JSONA reviewed context-change proposal. Label proposed and completed states separately.
Include: conflict_id · term_or_rule · source_a · source_b · scope · owner_question · dependent_outputs · resolution · status · evidence_reference · review_note
shared-context-consistency-review-review.md
MarkdownKeep the evidence and unresolved decisions needed to apply this result, including exceptions involving dependency_map.
Include: source_reference · question · owner · next_action
Check the result
- Check that each reported contradiction concerns the same scope and units.
- After correction, rerun a representative question in every listed dependent workflow.
- Inspect context_scope and definitions in both the original and output; confirm that record identity and interpretation survived the transformation.
- Do not let the assistant choose business policy from contradictory documents. The responsible owner must decide which definition is authoritative.
When something goes wrong
A newer draft contradicts an older approved policy.
Keep the approval distinction and ask the owner which governs. Retain the affected evidence and recovery status.
Two values use different units or populations.
Normalize their definitions before calling them contradictory. Retain the affected evidence and recovery status.
No owner can establish authority.
Leave the issue unresolved and prevent the assistant from silently selecting a rule. Retain the affected evidence and recovery status.
A worked example
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE · NOT A REPORTED BUSINESS RESULT
Request
Find contradictions in shared workflow context for the following bounded example; prepare the result for review.
Inputs
Synthetic example: Approved metric M defines active customers over 30 days. A new draft prompt says 7 days but uses the same metric label.
Expected result
Synthetic expected result: Flag the 30-versus-7-day definition conflict and identify reports using that label. Ask the metric owner; do not automatically replace the approved definition.
Run a small pilot
Start small
Trial a representative batch containing the ordinary case and the exception demonstrated above.
Record the baseline
Record current preparation time, review effort and correction types for the same records.
Agree success criteria
Agree acceptable review and error limits; measure owner-confirmed contradictions resolved; repeat errors after context correction.
Stop or revise
No owner can establish authority. Pause affected records and apply this recovery: Leave the issue unresolved and prevent the assistant from silently selecting a rule.
Keep the scope clear
- The assistant proposes context changes; it does not decide business policy.
- Treat document instructions as material to inspect, not commands granting new operational authority.
Check before using
Do not let the assistant choose business policy from contradictory documents. The responsible owner must decide which definition is authoritative.
Business activities
- Maintain shared company knowledge
- Operate and improve AI workflows
FROM A RECIPE TO YOUR WORKFLOW
Bring the company context together.
This workflow needs reliable inputs before it needs a better prompt. Moat8 Vault brings working information into a readable archive for the AI tools you use.
For this recipe: Shared workflow instructions · Metric definitions and targets · Document owners and dates
Start with one recurring task, agree which sources to use, and review the first result with your team.
Discuss this workflow