Begin with a fact type, not a tool
A CRM can be authoritative for opportunity stage but not for contractual notice. A signed agreement can own commercial terms while an operational database owns the current placement status. Authority belongs to a fact in a process, not to a software brand in general.
List the recurring questions and decompose them into the facts required to answer. For each fact, name the primary source, any useful supporting records, and the responsible business owner.
Record the conditions around authority
The authoritative record may depend on client, country, contract type, date, business unit, or workflow state. Those conditions must remain attached when evidence is retrieved.
Freshness is equally important. A policy can be authoritative in principle and still unsafe to use when its required review date has passed.
- Fact type and business entity
- Primary source and owner
- Scope conditions
- Expected update frequency
- Fallback and conflict rule
Treat conflict as work, not noise
When approved sources disagree, the system should not quietly average them or choose the newest date without a business rule. It should show the conflict, identify the owner, and pause any action whose safety depends on the disputed fact.
Resolving the conflict should update the source map and leave a record of the decision. Over time, these events reveal where the company's information architecture needs attention beyond the AI system.