The use of narratives as a means of fusing information from knowledge graphs (KGs) into a coherent line of argumentation has been the subject of recent investigation. Narratives are especially useful in event-centric knowledge graphs in that they provide a means to connect different real-world events and categorize them by well-known narrations. However, specifically for controversial events, a problem in information fusion arises, namely, multiple viewpoints regarding the validity of certain event aspects, e.g., regarding the role a participant takes in an event, may exist. Expressing those viewpoints in KGs is challenging because disputed information provided by different viewpoints may introduce inconsistencies . Hence, most KGs only feature a single view on the contained information, hampering the effectiveness of narrative information access. This paper is an extension of our original work and introduces attributions , i.e., parameterized predicates that allow for the representation of facts that are only valid in a specific viewpoint. For this, we develop a conceptual model that allows for the representation of viewpoint-dependent information. As an extension, we enhance the model by a conception of viewpoint-compatibility. Based on this, we deepen our original deliberations on the model’s effects on information fusion and provide additional grounding in the literature.