Two credible sources give different figures for the same metric: an industry association reports 42% adoption and a government survey reports 31%. The document analysis subagent currently picks the figure from whichever source it considers more authoritative and passes only that value on. Reviewers say the final reports hide real disagreement. What should change?

Answer: D — Have the document analysis subagent pass both values on, each annotated with its source and methodology, and let the coordinator decide how to reconcile them before synthesis.

Conflicting statistics from credible sources should be kept and explicitly annotated with attribution, leaving reconciliation to the coordinator instead of arbitrarily picking one (task 5.6). Averaging (a) invents a figure that neither source reported. Dropping contested metrics (b) removes important findings and hides the disagreement. A majority vote (c) is still arbitrary selection, and the synthesis agent isn't the agent that should do web searches.