Use caseMy sources disagree
Find out exactly where your sources stop agreeing
Four accounts of the same subject, three different stories. Get the agreement, the conflict and the missing evidence separated — with both sides kept.
The subjects are the sources
Where sources agree
All four treat migration effort, not licensing, as the real switching cost source 1 source 2 source 3 source 4
Where sources differ · both kept
- source 1Vendor migration page
“Most teams are live in under three days”
- source 3Practitioner forum thread
Two to five weeks, across six accounts
Still open
Neither states the team size it describes, so the two figures may not be comparable at all.
The situation
The disagreement isn’t noise. It’s the thing you need to understand.
A vendor page, an independent review and a practitioner thread describe the same subject and give you incompatible pictures. Averaging them loses the information; picking the one you like is how you get surprised later.
Typical shape
Vendor claim vs independent review
Both describe the same capability. One is selling it — neither is useless, and only one is advocacy.Typical shape
Two reports, different numbers
Often because they measured different things. The useful output is seeing the figures were never comparable.Typical shape
Official docs vs practitioner accounts
Documentation describes the intended path; threads describe what happened. The gap between them is the finding.Typical shape
An AI answer vs the sources
A captured ChatGPT or Claude conversation can sit in the set as AI-generated context. It never counts as one of the independent voices.
What this job does, and doesn’t
It won’t settle the argument for you
Nothing decides which source is right. The brief keeps both readings with their citations, because that is what the evidence supports.
It makes the disagreement legible
Agreement, conflict and missing evidence are separated and named — so you can see whether the argument is about evidence, about definitions, or about nothing at all.
Start here
Point the comparison at the sources
Comparison covers both kinds of comparison, and your wording decides which one you get. Ask about the sources and SourceFrame compares what they say; name options and it compares the options.
Web app · Comparison
“Where do vendor claims and independent reviews disagree on how long a Jira to Linear migration takes?”
The link fills in the prompt only — choose Comparison in the composer before you create.
- Wording about the sources
- Comparison
- Source Comparison Brief
Discovery can find the conflicting sources for you. If you already have the pages, capture them and ask the same way. Two or more usable sources are needed.
What decides it
In Comparison, the wording decides:
- Comparison · “Where do these pages agree and disagree about migration effort?”
- Source Comparison Brief
- Comparison · “What do the Linear and Jira reviews say about migration effort?”
- Source Comparison Brief
- Comparison · “Compare Linear and Jira”
- Comparison Brief
Naming products doesn’t turn it into an option comparison: while the wording points at the sources, the sources stay the subject.
A different comparison
Sources as the subjects, not options
Source Comparison Brief asks
“What do these sources agree and disagree about?”
Versus
Comparison Brief asks
“How do these options compare on the criteria that matter?”
What you get
Both readings, kept and attributed
Three cuts from one Source Comparison Brief. What’s inside a Source Comparison Brief
Where they line up
Where sources agree
Migration effort dominates the switching decision
All four sources treat data and workflow migration, not licence cost, as the real barrier source 1 source 2 source 3 source 4.
What the sources converge on, cited to each of them.
Where they split
Where sources differ
Disputed:How long migration actually takes
The vendor page says most teams are live in under three days, with no sample size given source 1; six practitioners in the forum thread report two to five weeks, mostly spent on historical tickets source 3.
A difference keeps both readings with their citations — the brief doesn’t pick one.
What none of them settles
Open questions
- Do the vendor and the thread describe teams of comparable size? Neither states it.
Listed as an open question, not smoothed over.
How SourceFrame handles the evidence
What kind of source it is becomes part of the reading
Divergence is preserved
Conflicting readings sit side by side with their citations. Nothing is averaged into a claim no source made.
Source quality, by dimension
Each source shows its perspective and, separately, its evidence depth. Advocacy is a perspective and assertion-only is an evidence depth — neither is a score.
AI chats aren’t a voice
A captured conversation is cited as AI-generated context, so it can’t manufacture agreement between independent sources.
One voice isn’t consensus
Where only one source speaks to a point, that goes in Evidence gaps & caveats rather than being read as everyone agreeing.
A worked run
Four accounts of one migration
The set and the focus
- source 1
Vendor migration page
Perspective · advocacy - source 2
Independent review
Perspective · balancedEvidence · example-based - source 3
Practitioner forum thread
Evidence · assertion-only - source 4
Benchmark report
Evidence · data-heavy
Comparison · wording about the sources
“Where do these pages agree and disagree about migration effort?”
Captured or discovered, the four sources are the subjects.
- source 1
What came back
- Agreement: Agreement on what the cost is — all four say migration, not licensing source 1 source 2 source 3 source 4
- Difference: An order-of-magnitude disagreement on how long it takes source 1 source 3
- Difference: A second difference: whether automation rules carry over or are rebuilt by hand source 2 source 3
- Open: Neither timeline states its team size, so the figures may never have been comparable
Both timelines stay in the brief with their citations. It doesn’t pick one.
The next meaningful action
- Add sources
- variant 2
Add one measured case study with a stated team size, and read the updated variant beside the original, which stays Primary. If you have to act despite the disagreement, Turn into… a Recommendation Brief, which states its status accordingly.
Where you can go next
Primary brief type
Source Comparison BriefThe full structure, and how comparing sources differs from comparing options.
Different comparison
Comparison BriefWhen the options are the subject and you need shared criteria instead of perspectives.
Closely related job
Check an AI answerThe same mechanics with a captured AI conversation in the set, as context beside the independent sources.
If themes matter more
Summarize a source setSame kind of reading, reported as themes and tensions rather than point-by-point agreement.