![Artificial Intelligence]()
Conflicting information from diverse sources is a critical challenge. Gödel’s Scaffolded Cognitive Prompting (GSCP) addresses this issue by introducing a multi-path, structured reasoning framework that enables language models to identify, evaluate, and resolve contradictions intelligently. Unlike traditional prompting strategies such as Zero-Shot or Chain-of-Thought (CoT), GSCP incorporates modular cognitive scaffolds, enabling it to reconcile inconsistencies with a higher degree of transparency and control.
Understanding the Challenge of Conflicting Information
AI systems often receive data from various sources—web documents, databases, user input, prior memory, etc. These sources may not always agree. For instance:
- A news article may claim a vaccine is 90% effective, while a scientific study reports 75%.
- Two historical records might date an event differently.
- One dataset might categorize an entity as a person, while another treats it as a location.
Traditional LLMs often handle such conflict by relying on statistical averaging or recency bias, which can lead to hallucinations, poor generalization, or misleading conclusions.
GSCP’s Multi-Stage Conflict Resolution Strategy
GSCP introduces a cognitive pipeline of reasoning stages, enabling the AI model to explicitly handle, rather than bypass, conflicting information. Here's how GSCP addresses the issue:
🔍 1. Source Attribution and Path Tracing
GSCP begins by tagging each incoming fact or assertion with its source metadata (e.g., document origin, model memory, citation level, recency, trustworthiness). These tags are used in semantic routing to determine which processing paths to engage.
Each scaffolded reasoning path retains a traceable context lineage, ensuring that the model can recall where information came from when contradictions are detected.
🧠 2. Parallel Cognitive Routing
Rather than merging information prematurely, GSCP processes each source in parallel using independent reasoning paths. Each path performs its own interpretation, extraction, and hypothesis-building steps.
This mirrors how a human might “hear both sides of the story” before deciding. By isolating source logic, GSCP reduces cross-contamination and allows the system to preserve minority or conflicting viewpoints.
⚖️ 3. Conflict Detection Engine
At convergence points, GSCP initiates a conflict resolution module, which compares outputs from parallel reasoning paths. This module evaluates:
- Semantic contradictions (e.g., A ≠ B)
- Statistical inconsistencies (e.g., numbers, rates, quantities)
- Factual dissonance (e.g., timeline mismatches)
- Frame-level mismatches (e.g., different ontologies or definitions)
This detection is powered by dynamic heuristics and optionally an embedded contradiction classifier trained on epistemic divergence datasets.
📊 4. Weighted Evaluation & Confidence Scoring
Each source is evaluated using multi-dimensional trust metrics, such as:
- Source credibility
- Evidence density
- Recency
- Factual consistency across contexts
- Alignment with known truths (if knowledge base is available)
GSCP then assigns confidence scores to each hypothesis and surfaces the scores alongside the generated output.
🧩 5. Scaffolded Resolution or Multi-Answer Presentation
Depending on the prompt type or configuration, GSCP can:
- Choose the strongest source and justify why (e.g., “Based on peer-reviewed evidence, Source B is more reliable.”)
- Present both conflicting answers with context (e.g., “Source A says X due to Y; Source B contradicts this citing Z.”)
- Generate a reconciled hypothesis that aligns or interpolates both (e.g., “While reports vary, most recent studies suggest a range between 75%–90% effectiveness.”)
This flexibility empowers users to make informed decisions, especially in sensitive domains like law, medicine, or geopolitics.
Real-World Example
Prompt: “What caused the financial collapse in Country X in 2023?”
GSCP Output:
Based on Source A (World Bank Report), the collapse was triggered by sovereign debt default. However, Source B (Investigative Journal) attributes it to systemic banking fraud. After evaluating both, GSCP suggests: “While debt default was the tipping point (Source A), underlying structural fraud (Source B) exacerbated the crisis. Thus, both causes played a critical role.”
This output reflects multi-path synthesis, not just factual regurgitation.
Conclusion
GSCP represents a significant leap in the reasoning capabilities of LLMs by providing structured conflict handling that mimics expert deliberation. Instead of flattening contradictions into oversimplified outputs, it embraces ambiguity, surfaces conflict transparently, and empowers users to understand the nuances behind competing truths.
In a world of information overload and epistemic complexity, GSCP’s scaffolded conflict resolution makes it an essential advancement for trustworthy AI.