Did the Pennsylvania Superior Court's holding conflict with Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959)

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner was subject to a pretrial polygraph by his bondsman for “risk assessment” purposes as a condition of his bond. The polygraph examiner testified before trial that he worked for the bondsman and was paid by him. The polygraph examiner’s trial testimony changed to assert that it was Petitioner who “hired” him when he was questioned about whether he told Petitioner to tell him “something happened” before he leaves. Where the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that if “there was any mistake in the examiner’s testimony as to who paid for his services . . . it was incumbent upon the defense to correct the ‘false narrative,” did that holding conflict with this Court’s decision in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959)?