What to do when two credible public sources disagree

Two credible sources can disagree without either one being careless.

That is uncomfortable because research feels easier when there is one clean answer. Real data is often less cooperative.

A disagreement can come from timing. One source may have been updated after another. It can come from scope. One source may describe a headquarters while another describes an operating location. It can come from definitions, reporting rules, or a difference in what each source is actually measuring.

The first reaction should not be to pick whichever value looks more plausible.

Instead, compare the source context.

What does each source claim to represent? When was the information current? Is one source closer to the original authority? Are both values possible because they describe different parts of the same business or event?

Sometimes the right result is to choose one value and document why. Sometimes both values belong in the research with a note explaining the distinction. And sometimes the disagreement is a signal that the record needs another source before anyone should act on it.

That last option is easy to overlook. A clean spreadsheet can create pressure to force every field into a single answer, even when the evidence has not earned that confidence yet.

Good research is not embarrassed by uncertainty. It makes uncertainty visible enough that the next person can make a better decision.

A disagreement between good sources is not a failure of the dataset. Hiding the disagreement can be.