Apparent conflict between accepted reports is analyzed in the following order:
Stage 1 — Reconciliation: Can both apply through sound interpretation or different circumstances?
Stage 2 — Abrogation: If not, does reliable chronology establish a later legal proof ending the former ruling?
Stage 3 — Preference: If chronology does not decide the matter, do reliable grounds from chains, wording, or supporting proof favor one report?
Stage 4 — Suspension: If no basis is decisive, withhold a premature determination.
The sequence is not just a mnemonic. Each stage requires evidence appropriate to its claim. Skipping steps may turn reconcilable reports into unnecessarily abrogated or rejected ones.