{
  "schema": "vedokrok.public-item.v1",
  "release_id": "MHC-RPUB-20260920-75ad787a",
  "url": "/knowledge/split-the-conflict-into-shared-facts-disputed-facts-and-interpretations",
  "id": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0763",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "title": "Split the conflict into shared facts, disputed facts and interpretations",
  "summary": "A conflict gets smaller when different kinds of disagreement stop pretending to be one thing.",
  "kind": "concept",
  "body": "Create three columns. Shared facts need no further debate. Disputed facts need evidence or a decision process. Interpretations need perspective-taking and may remain different. Solve each category with the right tool instead of arguing all three at once.",
  "limits": [
    "Some disputes involve contested standards or values that cannot be resolved by additional evidence alone."
  ],
  "topics": [
    "union-conflict-repair-and-difficult-conversations"
  ],
  "intents": [],
  "source_ids": [
    "RS-37217726DC46F74A",
    "RS-395F287B7F6FFEAC"
  ],
  "evidence": [
    {
      "claim": "Acas informal-meeting guidance recommends preparing what to say, gathering relevant evidence, considering what would fix the problem, listening to the other side and recording what is agreed.",
      "source_id": "RS-37217726DC46F74A",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "A workplace meeting may carry legal or policy requirements beyond these general practices.",
      "locator": "Preparing; at the meeting; putting things in writing"
    },
    {
      "claim": "Acas mediator guidance describes hearing participants separately, allowing each account without interruption in a joint meeting, summarising areas of agreement and disagreement, and checking that any agreement is workable and recorded.",
      "source_id": "RS-395F287B7F6FFEAC",
      "role": "supports",
      "note": "This is a mediation process example, not a claim that every difficult conversation requires these stages.",
      "locator": "Separate meeting; Joint meeting; If you reach an agreement"
    }
  ],
  "use_when": [
    "The disagreement feels total even though some parts may already be common ground."
  ],
  "avoid_when": [
    "Some disputes involve contested standards or values that cannot be resolved by additional evidence alone."
  ],
  "example": "Both sides agree a file arrived at 16:20; they dispute whether 16:20 violated the agreed cutoff and interpret the delay differently.",
  "check": "At least one part of the conflict has a clear resolution method: verify, negotiate or accept differing interpretation.",
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "RS-37217726DC46F74A",
      "title": "Informal meetings",
      "url": "https://www.acas.org.uk/how-to-raise-a-problem-at-work/going-to-an-informal-meeting"
    },
    {
      "id": "RS-395F287B7F6FFEAC",
      "title": "How Acas mediators work",
      "url": "https://www.acas.org.uk/acas-mediation-support/how-acas-mediators-work"
    }
  ],
  "relations": [
    {
      "from": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0763",
      "to": "MHC-D-RESEARCH-0764",
      "type": "use_before",
      "url": "/knowledge/ask-for-the-future-condition-both-sides-could-live-with"
    }
  ],
  "collections": [
    {
      "id": "RC-0370844062EBEB45",
      "title": "Handle a work conflict as a problem to resolve, not a verdict to win",
      "url": "/collections/handle-a-work-conflict-as-a-problem-to-resolve-not-a-verdict-to-win"
    }
  ]
}