To tackle the absence of health assessment mechanisms and the irrational maintenance cycles at distribution stations, a comprehensive evaluation method is introduced, integrating a conflict resolution mechanism for group decision-making differences. First, the method sets up an indicator system and an expert evaluation framework, featuring a novel binary conflict measurement function to quantify overarching conflicts. Subsequently, expert correction factors are devised using metrics like falseness, credibility, and usability of expert evaluations to enhance the D-S evidence theory. This adjustment facilitates the weighting of evaluation indicators through the aggregation of various expert opinions. Also, an improved GRA-TOPSIS model is established, integrating grey relational and distance closeness to yield a comprehensive closeness, improving TOPSIS’s one-sided criteria. Finally, this approach calculates the overall closeness between each station’s evaluation value and the ideal solution, accurately reflecting its health status. Experimental analysis reveals that this method effectively reconciles conflicts, differences, and uncertainties in expert evaluations, offering more precise and sensible assessment outcomes, thus providing valuable guidance for maintenance decision-making.