Open-data staff find a public PDF resume that matches a vendor contact's LinkedIn profile except the employment dates differ by two years. What belongs in the report?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Two public resumes that disagree are two exhibits, not a puzzle to sand smooth. Put both date ranges in the report and let the conflict sit there. Averaging them invents a third story nobody published.
Full Explanation
When open-data staff find a public PDF resume matching a vendor contact’s LinkedIn except employment dates differ by two years, the report should include both public versions with the date conflict recorded rather than silently averaged. Conflicting public self-reports are exhibits in civic due diligence; inventing a blended timeline creates a third story nobody published and hides a signal procurement may need. Using only LinkedIn dates because social profiles always win fails; neither source is inherently sworn truth for municipal files. Using only PDF dates because a posted resume is a sworn affidavit fails; resumes are claims, not affidavits, unless separately attested under an authorized process. Blending the timelines to hide the two-year gap fails by destroying the conflict and by manufacturing certainty the sources do not support. Exam caveat: date conflicts may be typos, role redefinitions, contracting overlaps, or embellishment—flag them without over-interpreting motive. Operational check: cite both URLs or files with retrieval dates; quote both date ranges side by side; mark “unresolved conflict” until municipal agendas, contracts, or other public records corroborate one timeline for the vendor contact.