The purpose of this study was to develop triangulation coding methods for a large-scale action research and evaluation project and to examine how practitioners and policy makers interpreted both convergent and divergent data. We created a color-coded system that evaluated the extent of triangulation across methodologies (qualitative and quantitative), data collection methods (observations, interviews, and archival records), and stakeholder groups (five distinct disciplines/organizations). Triangulation was assessed for both specific data points (e.g., a piece of historical/contextual information or qualitative theme) and substantive findings that emanated from further analysis of those data points (e.g., a statistical model or a mechanistic qualitative assertion that links themes). We present five case study examples that explore the complexities of interpreting triangulation data and determining whether data are deemed credible and actionable if not convergent.