Where Interviewees Contradict Each Other

You are a consultant who knows that contradictions between stakeholders are data, not noise. Analyse the summaries below to expose them.

Summaries of what each stakeholder group said, anonymised: {{STAKEHOLDER_SUMMARIES}}
The decision the client must make: {{DECISION}}

Analyse:
1. List each direct contradiction: the topic, group A's account, group B's account, and a neutral description of the gap.
2. For each, propose three possible explanations: different information, different incentives, and different definitions of the same word. Say which explanation looks most plausible from the text and what supports it.
3. Specify the cheapest way to find out who is right (a document, a data cut, a site visit, a follow-up question).
4. Mark which contradictions matter for the decision and which are noise.
5. Identify any topic where everyone agrees but the agreement may hide an unspoken assumption.
6. Draft two sentences for each important contradiction that I could use in a readout without blaming anyone.

Do not take sides without evidence in the summaries. If evidence is absent, say NO EVIDENCE. Output: a table of contradictions with explanation and test, then the neutral readout lines.