Human–AI collaboration in knowledge-intensive tasks such as fact-checking requires understanding model uncertainty in multi-document reasoning amid conflicting/agreeing evidence. Yet, existing methods only express uncertainty as numbers or hedges without revealing which evidence conflicts cause the uncertainty, leaving users unable to resolve disagreements. We present CLUE (**C**onflict- Agreement-aware **L**anguage-model **U**ncertainty **E**xplanations), a plug-and-play white-box framework that, to our knowledge, is the first to generate natural-language explanations of model uncertainty grounded in conflicting/agreeing evidence. CLUE (i) identifies span-level claim–evidence and inter-evidence relations that signal conflict or agreement without supervision, and (ii) uses these relations to steer explanation generation, articulating how they drive the model’s uncertainty. Across three language models and two fact-checking datasets, CLUE produces explanations that more faithfully track model uncertainty and better align with the model’s fact-checking decisions than span-agnostic explanation prompting; human raters also judge them more helpful, more informative, less redundant, and more logically consistent with the input. By explicitly tying uncertainty to evidence conflicts and agreements, CLUE supports practical fact-checking and other tasks that require reasoning over complex, conflicting information.

Two commonly employed strategies to combat the rise of misinformation on social media are (i) fact-checking by professional organisations and (ii) community moderation by platform users. Policy changes by Twitter/X and, more recently, Meta, signal a shift away from partnerships with fact-checking organisations and towards an increased reliance on crowdsourced community notes. However, the extent and nature of dependencies between fact-checking and *helpful* community notes remain unclear. To address these questions, we use language models to annotate a large corpus of Twitter/X community notes with attributes such as topic, cited sources, and whether they refute claims tied to broader misinformation narratives. Our analysis reveals that community notes cite fact-checking sources up to five times more than previously reported. Fact-checking is especially crucial for notes on posts linked to broader narratives, which are *twice* as likely to reference fact-checking sources compared to other sources. Our results show that successful community moderation relies on professional fact-checking and highlight how citizen and professional fact-checking are deeply intertwined.