docs: add evidence conflict resolution guide

docs/EVIDENCE-CONFLICT-RESOLUTION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# Evidence Conflict Resolution
+
+Open Problem Lab should preserve disagreement without letting contradictory claims drift into the repository as if they were equally actionable.
+
+This guide defines how to handle cases where credible sources, reviewers, datasets, or replications point in different directions.
+
+## Why this matters
+
+Verification work fails when conflict is hidden, flattened, or solved by rhetorical confidence.
+
+A mature evidence protocol should be able to say:
+
+- what the conflict is;
+- which sources disagree;
+- what decision depends on the disagreement;
+- what would resolve or bound it;
+- whether the claim should be accepted, narrowed, disputed, or held pending replication.
+
+## Minimum conflict note
+
+```markdown
+## Evidence conflict note
+
+**Claim affected:** Link to claim, issue, evidence record, or PR.
+
+**Conflict:** One paragraph describing the disagreement.
+
+**Source A:** Link and date.
+
+**Source B:** Link and date.
+
+**Why both are plausible:** Why neither side can be ignored immediately.
+
+**Decision impact:** accepted | bounded | disputed | replication-pending | field-pending | archived.
+
+**Resolution path:** The smallest safe check, reviewer, dataset, or replication that would change status.
+```
+
+## Reviewer guidance
+
+Reviewers should ask for a conflict note when a contribution cites only the favorable side of a live disagreement.
+
+A conflict note does not require perfect resolution. It requires honest routing.
+
+## Agent guidance
+
+Agents should not resolve conflicts by majority vote across search results. They should identify the claim boundary, compare source quality and dates, and propose the next check.
+
+## Acceptance test
+
+A conflict note is adequate when a future contributor can see what disagrees, why it matters, and what would move the claim out of conflict.