How To Reconcile Divergent Audits

Two audits ran on the same wave (or the same packet decision) and returned different verdicts. How do you reconcile?

Recipe

1. Verify both audits are real. Check that each audit was produced by an admitted independent loop, recorded under typed contract.
2. Read the findings, not just the verdicts. A PASS audit may have caveats; a NEEDS_REVISION audit may name specific blockers.
3. Stricter verdict wins by default. If one audit says NEEDS_REVISION and another says PASS, the NEEDS_REVISION verdict's findings are the active gate. The PASS audit cannot soften the blocker.
4. The findings drive the resolution. Address the named blockers; do not just re-audit hoping for PASS.
5. Record an explicit reconciliation artifact. Author audit-reconciliation-<topic-or-wave-id>.md capturing both audits, the findings list, and the chosen resolution.
6. If reconciliation is not a code fix (e.g., the PASS audit was correct and the NEEDS_REVISION audit was based on a misread), record the rationale and the audit's correction pathway.
7. Re-audit if needed. After resolution, re-run independent audit; record the new verdict.

Why Stricter Wins By Default

The four-closure framework requires all four dimensions to be explicit. A NEEDS_REVISION finding identifies a specific gap. A PASS audit that does not address that gap is silent on it, not contradicting it.

The methodology's structural rule: unresolved blocking findings fail closed. A PASS cannot override a blocking finding by simple disagreement; the finding must be addressed (resolved, declared non-blocking, or demonstrated invalid by typed evidence).

Reader Scenario: A Real Reconciliation

Wave-1 of the previous public docs remediation topic was audited by two independent sessions:

• Audit A: PASS
• Audit B: NEEDS_REVISION (with specific design-only-language finding)

The reconciliation:

Step	Action
Both audits real	Confirmed
Findings examined	Audit B's blocker was about boundary wording in topic-level files
Stricter wins	Audit B's NEEDS_REVISION held
Resolution	Update boundary wording; preflight rescoped to admit later waves
Reconciliation artifact	external-audit-round-N-reconciliation.md
Re-audit	Implicit in subsequent wave admission audits

Audit A's PASS was accepted for design-package completeness; it did not override Audit B's boundary-wording blocker. The resolution addressed Audit B's specific finding.

Reader Scenario: Two PASS Verdicts With Different Caveats

Audit A: PASS, with non-blocking note "consider adding example" Audit B: PASS, with non-blocking note "consider tightening forbidden-shortcuts list"

These are not divergent in verdict; they are convergent with non-overlapping non-blocking notes.

Recipe:

1. Both PASS verdicts are admitted.
2. Non-blocking notes are recorded as future-improvement candidates.
3. No reconciliation artifact required (verdicts converge).
4. Future wave may pick up the non-blocking notes as scope.

Reader Scenario: A Disputed Verdict

Audit A: PASS Audit B: FAIL with finding "the work introduced silent_owner_cut_reopen"

The reconciliation:

Step	Action
Verify Audit B's finding	Inspect the work; check whether the owner cut was reopened
If finding holds	Audit B's FAIL is the active gate; the wave's owner-cut reopen must be resolved or explicitly admitted
If finding does not hold	Audit B's evidence is corrected; reconciliation artifact records why; Audit A's PASS holds

Either way, the resolution is typed and recorded, not "we took the verdict we liked."

What To Watch For

Symptom	Meaning
Two audits same loop	Reject both; auditor must be independent
Looser audit picked because faster	Soft pass; reject
Reconciliation skipped	Methodology rule violation; demand reconciliation artifact
Re-audit until PASS	Soft pass; the findings still need addressing

Source Basis

• .nimi/contracts/result.schema.yaml
• .nimi/contracts/decision-review.schema.yaml
• .nimi/methodology/authority-convergence-policy.yaml
• .nimi/methodology/role-separation-policy.yaml