I can't guess how these differences would play out in a particular research project but it's pretty clear that they could lead to very different conclusions. Even from the same undisputed set of observations or facts.
Such an idea is impossible in Science.
If you have an undisputed set of observations or facts... then they only ever lead to one single Scientific conclusion.
The only other possibility is that you haven't done a test yet. If there's no test - then there's no agreement on the outcome of that test - how could there be unless someone can read the future?
Many different scientists can have different ideas on what tests to do - and what the possible-outcomes of those tests may be.
But once a test is done - it's done for everyone. The only way for Science to disagree on the conclusion of a test is to do the test again and show an error in the previous test (generally resulting in Nobel Prizes for catching an error.) Which would still result in only 1 valid test - and only 1 valid conclusion.
Any differences scientists have are always on future ideas: possible-tests and possible-conclusions-from-those-possible-tests. And all scientists know that without a test - you cannot claim that something "is known" to be a part of reality.
Therefore - if you have an undisputed set of observations or facts (aka "conclusions")... then, Scientifically, you always only have 1 answer that every honest person will acknowledge.
That's how you know that when a Scientist says something is part of reality - you know it's been tested and you know that all honest people agree.
When anyone-else claims something is part of reality - that's why they're always asked "what's your evidence?" (What's your test? What's your honest approach? What's your conclusion?)
When those questions are left wanting... so is the claim's veracity.