I have a project brief, an approved specification, and a newer set of client comments in the same Claude conversation. The comments change two requirements but don’t replace the whole specification.

When I ask for an implementation checklist, Claude sometimes combines incompatible requirements into something that sounds reasonable. I need the contradictions surfaced, not quietly reconciled.

Would a short document precedence table be enough, or should I explicitly list which sections each amendment replaces? “Use the newest file” feels too blunt because the newest document also contains suggestions that haven’t been approved.

Has anyone found a practical way to manage conflicting requirements across attachments without preparing a completely consolidated specification before every request? Ideally, each checklist item would point back to its governing document, and unresolved conflicts would stay unresolved.