Suppose a general directive is followed by another proof dealing specifically with a subgroup or circumstance. Different formulations alone do not establish that the first ruling was abrogated. Determine whether the first was genuinely unrestricted and what the second adds.
Step 1: Establish what each text says and to whom it applies.
Step 2: Ask whether the second specifies the first or explains a summarized rule.
Step 3: Only if a genuine irreconcilable conflict remains should the chronology and probative force be examined.
Calling specification or clarification “abrogation” in the later technical sense may falsely imply that a valid ruling has ceased. Apparent tension, different applications, and actual repeal are separate claims requiring separate proof.