Conflict Taxonomy

Agent conflicts fall into four categories, each requiring a different resolution approach. Resource Conflicts (38.27%): two agents competing for the same input, attention, or processing window. BLITZ and QUILL both need CIPHER's analysis for different campaigns — but CIPHER can only produce one deliverable at a time. Priority Conflicts (24.61%): agents disagreeing on what matters most. CLOSER wants to pursue a high-value lead; HUNTER wants to expand the pipeline breadth. Both are right within their role contracts.

Methodology Conflicts (22.84%): agents producing contradictory outputs from the same inputs. SCOPE rates a competitor as a significant threat; VANGUARD classifies the same competitor as declining. Both analyzed the same data. Boundary Conflicts (14.28%): agents operating in overlapping territory. When BEACON was deployed, her customer intelligence work initially overlapped with SCOPE's research outputs — both were producing "customer insights" with different definitions of the term.

The taxonomy matters because the resolution protocol differs by type. Resource conflicts are solved by scheduling. Priority conflicts are solved by business context. Methodology conflicts are solved by debate. Boundary conflicts are solved by role redesign.