Describe resolving a high-stakes research disagreement

Describe a time you and a stakeholder strongly disagreed on the framing or interpretation of a technical problem (e.g., a probability/statistics assumption or a research design choice). What was the exact point of disagreement, what evidence did each side bring, and how did you structure the discussion to converge? Walk through your decision process, escalation path if needed, risks you accepted, and the concrete result. Quantify impact (metrics, timelines, downstream effects). In retrospect, what would you change about your approach to reduce friction while preserving rigor?