What problem does it solve? When two or more biomedical papers appear to disagree, it is hard to tell whether the conflict is real or caused by differences in population, endpoints, platforms, models, or overclaimed conclusions. This Skill decomposes the disagreement into traceable methodological sources so you know what kind of conflict you are actually facing. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Conflict Classification: Categorizes disagreement as true directional contradiction, partial conflict, endpoint mismatch, population mismatch, platform mismatch, analytical disagreement, validation asymmetry, or interpretation overreach. - Boundary and Methods Comparison: Systematically compares population, endpoint definitions, sample sources, assay platforms, statistical models, adjustment strategies, and validation depth across studies. - Structured Resolution Judgment: Resolves conflicts via boundary separation, evidence hierarchy, validation asymmetry, interpretation downgrade, or maintained uncertainty, with citation-use guidance. - Use Case: Two sepsis biomarker papers report opposite conclusions. The Skill audits their cohorts, endpoints, platforms, and validation chains, then determines whether the contradiction is real or an artifact of non-overlapping study boundaries. ## Quick Start Ask the AI to explain why these two attached papers on the same biomarker reach opposite conclusions and whether the conflict is real or methodological.
