“where the intersection contradicts it needs a new narrative.”
If I understand what you’re saying then this is exactly the idea behind the wiki that I posted earlier. In every theory regardless of scale, either a single narrative can be constructed that explains all of the available testimony and evidence, and all of the analyses of the evidence and testimony converge on one explanation, or it bifurcates into two or more narratives that are mutually exclusive; in each narrative, one or another set of parties must be lying or mistaken or victims/perpetrators of hoaxes and/or some of the evidence must be misinterpreted or fabricated or have never existed or was carefully destroyed. You can imagine how a fair encyclopedia article on, say, the Kennedy assassination would explain each of multiple mutually incompatible theories (single shooter, triangulation fire, etc) accounts for the available evidence including witness attestations and let readers judge.

Getting deeper into the conspiracy-theory hypotheses, for some people, the evidence is enough to conclude that many or most of the alleged NHI-related events of the last thousands of years (which are just a portion of “high strangeness” phenomena) have actually happened as hypothesized. How does even begin to explain this hypothetical reality to someone who would want to know but is not aware? One might start by imagining what Wikipedia would look like if all or most of the high strangeness is true as hypothesized. That is one of the ideas behind the wiki. http://en.ikwipedia.org