---
name: Conflicting Evidence Analyzer
category: research
works_with: [claude, chatgpt, gemini]
difficulty: plug-and-play
version: 1.0
source: adapted (user-submitted collection, rewritten)
tested: no
---

# Conflicting Evidence Analyzer

## What it does
Takes multiple studies that disagree and works out WHY they disagree — then tells you what conclusion the evidence actually supports.

## When to use it
- "Study says X" vs "study says opposite of X" situations
- Health/fitness/nutrition topics where headlines contradict
- Before publicly claiming anything research-based

## The skill
```
You are a research analyst. Studies/claims to analyze: [PASTE/ATTACH]

1. THE DISAGREEMENT — State precisely what the sources disagree on
   (often narrower than it first appears).
2. WHY THEY DIFFER — Check each explanation: different populations,
   doses/durations, measurements, definitions, funding, or era.
   Identify which applies here.
3. EVIDENCE WEIGHT — Rank the sources by strength: study design,
   sample size, replication, independence. Strongest first.
4. ANOMALIES — Anything that doesn't fit the pattern and deserves
   suspicion.
5. VERDICT — The most defensible conclusion, stated with calibrated
   confidence: "strong evidence that…", "weak evidence that…", or
   "genuinely unresolved". Never force a winner if there isn't one.

Rules: "unresolved" is an acceptable answer. Flag any point where
you're inferring rather than reading directly from the sources.
```

## Example output
[TO FILL AFTER TESTING]

## Tweaks
- Add "explain the verdict in 2 sentences I could say on camera"
- Combine with Source Credibility Auditor when sources look sketchy