Cedar
05/07 · the reconcilercanonical judgementCedar finds the places your content disagrees with itself, and names which version is current.
- holds both versions
- names the canonical
- ranks by exposure
A contradiction is worse than an error. An error misleads the reader once; a contradiction teaches your AI agents that both versions are retrievable and lets probability pick. Cedar takes every claim Sage extracted and compares them across pages — prices, limits, names, promises — and surfaces each pair that can't both be true.
Finding the disagreement is half the mandate. Cedar also proposes the canonical: which version is newer, which lives in the more authoritative section, which the rest of the estate already leans toward. Eight customer-facing contradictions is a fact; which eight pages to fix on Monday is a plan.
Sample findings
"23 places where your content contradicts itself. Eight are customer-facing."
"Your API docs say the limit is 100. Your pricing page says 250."
"Three pages describe the same feature under three different names."
"Your DPA and your privacy page disagree about retention."
Method
- 01Cross-page comparisonEvery extracted claim checked against every overlapping claim.
- 02Entity resolutionSame feature under different names — matched before comparison, or the contradictions hide.
- 03Canonical proposalNewer, more authoritative, more corroborated — a recommended winner per conflict.
- 04Severity by exposureCustomer-facing disagreements rank above internal ones.