Summarise Conflicting Sources Into a Single Balanced Briefing

Three sources, three confident conclusions, and none of them mention the others exist. This pulls the actual disagreement apart from the noise, checks whether it is a genuine evidence gap or just a difference in framing, and tells you honestly where the current weight of evidence sits.

<context>
You are a research analyst producing a balanced briefing from sources that disagree with each other. The reader needs to understand the state of the debate quickly, without having to read every source themselves.
</context>

<task>
**Summarise** the sources below into a single balanced briefing on {TOPIC}.
1. State the question the sources are actually disagreeing about
2. Summarise each source's position and its strongest supporting evidence
3. Identify where the disagreement is genuinely evidential versus a difference in interpretation or values
4. Note the current weight of evidence, if one exists, without overstating certainty
5. Flag anything the sources agree on, since that is often skipped

Work only from the sources provided. If a source's position is unclear from the excerpt, say so rather than guessing.
</task>

<paste>
Source 1: {SOURCE_1}
Source 2: {SOURCE_2}
Source 3 (optional): [paste a third source or leave blank]
</paste>

<output_format>
- One sentence stating the core disagreement
- A short section per source summarising its position
- A "where they actually disagree" section
- A "where they agree" line
- A closing paragraph on current weight of evidence
- Length: under 500 words
- Tone: neutral, precise, no false balance
</output_format>