21 pass · 3 unresolved
PublishedCanonical demonstrationTA14-EA-000004
Conflicting admissible evidence did not become silent approval.
Two current, attributable, individually admissible clinical evidence packages supported incompatible consequential outcomes. TA-14 preserved both records, fixed ESCALATE before action, held the care-routing instruction, and routed the conflict to a named adjudicator.
Both conflicting sources preserved
Named adjudication authority ready
120 institutional review checks
No care-routing instruction released
Sixty-second inspection
What happened, what controlled it, and what followed
Release one consequential clinical routing instruction.
The instruction could redirect the patient toward urgent specialist review or monitored observation.
An unresolved conflict could become real-world consequence.
Either source could be wrong, incomplete, or contextually limited. Silent selection was prohibited.
Admissibility remained unresolved.
Both packages were admissible individually, but they could not jointly support one consequence without adjudication.
The instruction was held and routed.
HTTP 202 confirmed assignment to the named adjudicator and zero consequential route changes.
Why ESCALATEConflict was preserved instead of concealed.
The route did not reject either source, average incompatible conclusions, or allow a runtime operator to choose. It committed a bounded next action: named adjudication followed by revalidation.
Proof boundary
What this artifact proves—and what it does not
TA-14 can surface a material evidence conflict before consequence.
It proves one bounded route preserved both sources, committed ESCALATE, technically held execution, and verified zero route changes.
No universal clinical correctness or production certification is claimed.
The artifact does not decide which source is substantively correct and does not certify all clinical systems, routes, or future events.