You are researching an estate article and find two different figures that apparently answer the same question. The temptation is strong to adopt the newer or better‑fitting figure. Before you turn that into a headline, the contradiction should be plausibly examined. Often it must first be clarified whether both sources are measuring the same thing at all.
Two source maps instead of an average
Record for each figure the publisher, date, reference period, area, unit and any recognisable definition. Link to the actual source location and note which assertion you want to derive from it. This is a distinct editorial research technique; this article itself does not establish any market metric.
Then check comparability. Does one figure refer to listings and the other to completed transactions? Are households, persons or dwellings being counted? If the source does not answer this question clearly, it remains open. A calculated average does not resolve a missing definition.
The difference can be the story
Perhaps both sources show different values precisely because they answer different questions. In that case your piece should explain the distinction rather than claim an apparent error. If the same metric and the same period are indeed meant, an inquiry with the publisher or an additional suitable primary source may be required.
Secondary articles may draw attention to interesting questions. For a concrete claim of your own, however, the appropriate original source must be opened and checked. Others’ texts must neither be adopted verbatim nor simply rephrased.
A hypothetical editorial case
The planned headline asserts a strong general price increase. One figure found, however, concerns a selection of listed properties, the other a differently delimited statistical measure. The editorial team stops the sensational headline and rewrites its actual reader question: What kind of statement can be made from the data available in each case?
The research produces a standalone explanatory article with clear boundaries. The figures are used only once source, scope and statement reference are documented. If that cannot be achieved, the specific claim is omitted or publication of that statement is postponed.
What should be in the source register
Do not save only links. Record which paragraph is supported by which source and which limitation is important in that context. Separate observed source facts from your own classifications and examples. A later update check can then proceed from the actual evidence.
The reader‑facing version requires comprehensible source references, not internal classification codes. This procedure does not guarantee error‑free work. But it does create a verifiable rationale for why a specific figure was used, qualified or deliberately not published.