For those who are in a conflict, they do not understand.

Hello. First, the fact that we do not understand a disagreement does not mean that there is no disagreement, but that it is minimized as much as possible.
This rule is logical and not Talmudic. The assumption is that if there is one reasonable opinion, then it is more likely that another reasonable opinion will be close to it than far from it, and therefore the interpretation that brings it closer is preferred. For example, one does not assume that there are two different disputes between two conditions if the dispute can be explained by only one principle. The Maimonides’ rule that there is no disagreement in the Hebrew Bible and in matters of tradition is problematic, of course (as is known, the Rabbi Si’ Katsav elaborated on this), but I do not see the connection to us. The Maimonides states that there is no disagreement, not that the disagreement is small. A final comment regarding your last comment on the excuse of the Torah and the rabbis. In P. Thulin, regarding the city of gold, three conditions were discussed, and there we find in the Gemara that there is no disagreement from end to end, meaning that if one requires the sin of the other, it does not completely permit, but rather prohibits, according to the rabbis. This is essentially an application of the rule that those who disagree do not understand.