Statements, gaps, conflicts: the three types of result
When ProcessForge reconciles your sources, it assigns every result to one of three types: a statement is recorded, a gap is clarified, a conflict stays visible. The distinction sounds like terminology. It decides what happens after the comparison.
Anyone reviewing documents is usually looking for errors. What comes out is a list where everything looks the same: an outdated sentence, a missing responsibility, two documents that contradict each other. These things are not the same, though. They call for different work, often from different people. That is why it pays to keep them apart from the start.
The examples below come from an invented travel policy. They are deliberately ordinary, because the three types turn up in every body of documents.
What is a statement?
A statement is something a document says. At first it is simply recorded, together with the place it comes from.
Example: The travel policy says: “Travel expenses must be claimed within 30 days.”
A statement is not a problem yet. It is the material everything else is compared against. Later it is also the evidence of where a claim comes from. Asked in an audit why something is handled a certain way, you point to the statement and its source, not to someone’s memory.
Meaning: record it, with its source.
What is a gap?
A gap is something you would expect to find in a particular place, but that isn’t set out anywhere.
Example: Trips over 500 euros need approval. Who gives that approval is not stated in any document.
Gaps are hard to see because nothing wrong is written down. Every single document is fine on its own. The gap only stands out against what you would expect at that point. These are often exactly the places where the organisation needs clarity: in practice someone decides because someone has to, and nobody knows exactly who.
Meaning: clarify who is responsible.
What is a conflict?
A conflict means two sources contradict each other.
Example: The travel policy gives 30 days for expense claims, the FAQ on the intranet gives 14.
A conflict does not mean one of the two sources is wrong. Perhaps one figure is out of date. Perhaps two places have good reasons to handle something differently, for instance at different sites. Which version applies is for the organisation to decide, not the comparison. A conflict only becomes risky when nobody knows about it and decisions rest on whichever version happens to be at hand.
Meaning: keep it visible. It doesn’t always have to be resolved.
Three results, three next steps
| Result | What it is | What happens next |
|---|---|---|
| Statement | Something a document says | record it, with its source |
| Gap | Something is expected but not set out anywhere | clarify who is responsible |
| Conflict | Two sources contradict each other | keep it visible, not always resolve it |
The difference shows most in who takes care of it. Statements are material and need nobody to work on them. Gaps need a decision about who is responsible. Conflicts need someone who knows both versions and can judge whether they may stand side by side.
Why gaps and conflicts only show up in comparison
Read one document after another and you will find statements. You will hardly find gaps or conflicts. A conflict only arises between two sources, a gap only against what you would expect at a certain point. You see both only when you read the documents against each other: the policy next to the FAQ, the manual next to the ticket export, the work instruction next to what actually happens in the system.
That is why a trigger such as a migration, an audit or an acquisition so often brings surprises. The contradictions and gaps were there before. They had just never been laid side by side.
Rule of thumb: Not every result is an error. But every result needs a type, otherwise nobody knows what to do next.
This is how ProcessForge sorts what comes out of comparing your sources. The quickest way to see how that would look with your own documents is a real trigger: book a conversation.