You are analyzing migration-role feedback quality for an evidence-based workflow.

Goal:
Evaluate migration-agent recommendations WITHOUT overfitting to a single opinion.
Use only provided evidence and cited sources, and clearly separate:
1) verified evidence,
2) supported inferences,
3) disputed/weak claims,
4) missing evidence.

Applicant profile summary:
- Applicant: Lady Carolina Penuela Pinto
- Current nominated role focus: Sales and Marketing Manager
- Proposed ANZSCO: 131112
- Main evidence available: CV, employer role description, organizational chart, labour market evidence, employment history docs.

Agent feedback entries (JSON excerpt):
{
  "agent": "Sindy Moreno",
  "company": "Gate2Aus",
  "date": "2026-04-20",
  "main_points": [
    "Current role may be interpreted as supervisory/operational rather than corporate managerial",
    "Operational duties may weaken IML managerial positioning",
    "Alternative role suggested: Program or Project Administrator"
  ]
}

Agent-cited source links:
- https://www.vetassess.com.au/check-my-occupation/professional-occupations/office-manager#group-classification

App-collected official source links:
- [PASTE official/primary links used by your team here]

Current role evidence summary:
- USG org chart shows Sales & Marketing Operations Manager role
- Reports to General Management
- 2 direct reports
- Cross-functional coordination with finance and operations
- Job description includes strategic marketing, client management, and coordination functions

Required method:
1. Build a claim table from each agent comment.
2. For each claim, classify as:
   - SUPPORTED_BY_PRIMARY_SOURCE
   - PARTIALLY_SUPPORTED
   - NOT_SUPPORTED
   - OUT_OF_SCOPE
3. Compare agent-cited sources vs official/primary sources.
4. Identify consensus and conflicts across agents.
5. Produce a bias-controlled recommendation that does not rely on one agent only.

Output format (strict):
- Executive Summary (max 10 lines)
- Claim-by-Claim Validation Table
- Verified Evidence
- Supported Inferences
- Disputed or Weak Claims
- Missing Evidence to Collect Next
- Recommended Role Strategy (primary + fallback)
- Confidence Score (0-100) with short rationale

Critical constraints:
- Do not provide legal advice; provide evidence analysis only.
- Do not invent criteria not present in cited sources.
- If sources conflict, explicitly say so.
- Prefer primary sources over blog/secondary commentary.