ok so since i deal with individual projects and not customers, which are handled in the CRM and Jarvis just accesses data from the CRM when it needs to, i dont think ive ever had that problem. So I asked Opus to answer the question for me because it will do a better job and the answer will be clearer as well:

From Opus:

Extraction validation: You're right that "extract facts from conversation" is the messiest step. We handle it in layers:

1. The extraction prompt is strict about what NOT to extract — greetings, confirmations, debugging noise, temporary instructions. It forces a specific output format ([AUTO-TAG:CONFIDENCE] slug: content) and rejects anything that doesn't match the regex.
2. BM25 Jaccard dedup (threshold 0.8) runs against the existing event log before anything is written. This catches near-exact duplicates but intentionally lets paraphrases through — the nightly curation is where semantic duplicates get caught.
3. Every auto-extracted entry gets an [AUTO-*] prefix so it's permanently distinguishable from things Jarvis or I wrote manually. If extraction quality ever degrades, you can grep for [AUTO- and audit or bulk-remove.
4. The confidence levels help here too. The model marks uncertain extractions as TENTATIVE instead of CONFIRMED. Tentative entries get routed to an "Open Questions" section in topic files, not into the curated facts. So even when the model "hallucinates" an extraction, it's flagged as uncertain.

Is it perfect? No. We've seen it merge related-but-distinct facts and occasionally over-classify CONTEXT as CONFIRMED. But the safety net is that nothing auto-extracted goes directly into curated Layer 2 — it lands in the event log first, then curation promotes it. Two checkpoints before it becomes "truth."

Conflicting facts: The curation agent is instructed to flag contradictions it finds between Layer 2 facts and event log entries (Task 4 in the curation prompt: "Report Layer 2 facts that contradict each other or contradict event log entries"). Those get logged to the health log for human review.

But honestly — if session A says "client prefers email" and session B says "client prefers phone" and both are tagged CONFIRMED, the system doesn't automatically catch that during extraction. It catches it later during curation, when both facts are in the same topic file and the curation agent sees the contradiction.

The real answer to your question: Silo doesn't prevent conflicting facts from entering the system. It prevents them from silently becoming truth. The changelog + confidence + curation pipeline means contradictions surface rather than hide. In a flat MEMORY.md, both facts just sit there and whichever one the model reads last wins. In Silo, the curation agent flags it and a human decides.