Using the statistical concept of "severity" to assess seemingly contradictory statistical evidence (with a particular application to damage estimation)

When parties present divergent econometric evidence, the court may view such evidence as contradictory and thus ignore it completely, without conducting closer analysis. We develop a simple method for distinguishing between actual and merely apparent contradiction based on the statistical concept of the "severity" of the furnished evidence. Again using "severity", we also propose a method for reconciling divergent findings in instances of mere seeming contradiction. Our chosen application is that of damage estimation in follow-on cases.