What should an investing agent do when two approved rules conflict?

Name the conflict before resolving it

Two individually clear rules can produce an unclear combined instruction. In an invented research workflow, Rule A says to finish every review today, while Rule B requires a cited disclosure for every operational claim. The required disclosure is unavailable. The system cannot satisfy both as written.

This example concerns a research report, not a trade. A preference for speed need not have the same status as an evidence requirement, but their relationship should be decided in the workflow design. Do not let the model’s confidence become an undeclared third rule.

Build a three-row conflict matrix

Write a compact matrix with the pair of rules, triggering condition, accepted priority, and expected output. The following rows are hypothetical policy choices, not universal investing rules. A person should accept or change them before using them.

• Deadline versus source requirement: source missing → evidence requirement takes priority → deliver an incomplete review with the missing item named.
• Preferred brevity versus required qualification: qualification changes the meaning → retain the qualification → shorten another part of the report.
• Two required definitions disagree: neither has accepted precedence → no automatic winner → return the competing interpretations for review.

Keep exceptions separate from priorities

A priority says which instruction governs a defined collision. An exception permits a departure under a specific condition. For example, allowing a preliminary report with an unresolved source is different from allowing the report to present an unsupported claim as verified.

Give each exception an owner, scope, reason, and end condition. For the invented deadline case, an exception might permit a preliminary document labelled incomplete, but prohibit treating it as a completed evidence review. The exact wording lets another reviewer tell whether the exception was followed.

Check a normal case, a conflict, and a near miss

Draft three paper cases before asking an agent to handle them. With the source present, the report may be completed. With it absent, the matrix calls for an incomplete report. With a source for the wrong period, the evidence requirement is still unmet. Write these expected responses in advance.

Compare the proposed output with the accepted matrix and record the specific mismatch. This is a proposed review exercise; no agent test or customer outcome is reported here. A result that happens to look reasonable can still violate the agreed priority.

Keep action authority outside the conflict

OWASP recommends independent checks of permission and approval before sensitive actions. Accordingly, a proposed research priority should never be treated as permission to send a message, change an account, or place an order. Those are separate authority questions.

If resolving a conflict changes an accepted rule’s meaning, create a revised version with a reason and obtain the applicable review. Keep the earlier version readable so the decision can be reconstructed.

Method, sources, and limits

The conflict matrix is an original hypothetical worksheet. OWASP guidance was opened and checked on 26 October 2026 for the narrow permission boundary above. This article does not claim that Thesis Lab implements the matrix, report a security test, or recommend a particular investment rule.