How could this technical sentenced be improved for better clarity?
Cannot translate the ‘name1’ concept1 to the ‘name2’ concept2 because the higher
precedence ‘name3’ concept3 also exists, which overrides it.
This is a technical message to a user of a computer program where I have eliminated the jargon as it is not relevant to this question. The idea is that there are two things (concept1 and concept3) that both would translate to a single thing (concept2) and we can only use one and are picking one (concept3) and warning about the other (concept1) not being used.
For style consistency with other messages, I wish to retain the structure of the pattern:
Cannot <do something> because <of something else>.
The 'name1' etc. are names to uniquely identify a particular object and the 'concept' is the category of objects which 'name' chooses one. So the original could be recast (nonsensically) as:
Cannot translate the ‘Fred’ apple to the ‘John’ orange because the higher
precedence ‘Julia’ tangerine also exists, which overrides it.
In this case, we have a machine that takes fruit and converts it into oranges, if you supply both an apple and a tangerine, only one is used, the tangerine, to create the orange, and the apple is ignored because tangerines are given higher priority over apples.
So my question revolves around the use and placement of the phrases: 'higher precedence', 'also exists', and 'which overrides it'. Could these be rearranged for better clarity or substituted with other phrases that might be clearer?