--- title: "Freshness and conflicts" description: "How facts go stale, what happens when two sources disagree, and how a published post is flagged for revisiting." updated: "2026-08-24" verifiedAgainst: - packages/shared/src/knowledge.ts - packages/shared/src/content-freshness.ts - workers/content-freshness.ts --- Knowledge that was true last quarter is the most dangerous kind, because nothing about it looks wrong. ## Freshness Each source carries a recheck window with a minimum floor, so nothing is set to refresh so often that it becomes a crawl of somebody's site. When a source has not been rechecked inside its window, the facts that depend on it become `stale`. Stale does not mean false. It means unconfirmed, and drafts lean on it less. ## Conflicts When two sources disagree about the same thing, the fact is marked `disputed` rather than one source quietly winning. Disputes surface in the Knowledge workspace with both sides and their sources, so you can decide. Resolving a dispute usually means confirming the correct version yourself, which supersedes the other. ## Published posts that depend on changed facts A published article whose supporting facts have moved gets a separate Content freshness review. The Post stays `published` and remains live: taking an article down because one detail moved would be worse than leaving it while you decide. The review records the exact evidence and content hashes behind the finding. Changed or disputed facts are high-priority reviews; expired evidence, a qualified Search Console decline, three recent negative reader ratings, and a 180-day editorial interval are prompts to review, not claims that the article is wrong. Low-volume search movement and site-wide declines are deliberately suppressed. Open **Posts → Needs freshness review** to work the queue. You can review the live article, refresh Knowledge first, snooze the exact finding, dismiss unchanged evidence, or generate a separate refresh draft when the source Topic supports regeneration.