swarm-discussion

Multi-expert debates prevent echo chambers by using structured disagreement protocols like tension maps and steel-manning to force diverse perspectives. This approach tracks claims and rebuttals in an argument graph, ensuring conflicting viewpoints are fully explored and documented before reaching convergence.

A tension map is a structured disagreement tool that explicitly charts conflicting viewpoints and positions among experts. It improves group decision-making by preventing premature convergence, ensuring all dissenting perspectives are declared and evaluated before a final synthesis is generated.

You track arguments across discussion rounds by using an argument graph to map claims, rebuttals, and evidence. This is paired with live progress reporting and historian-logged round records to maintain transparent, reproducible reasoning throughout the debate.

Yes, you can dynamically generate topic-specific experts to adapt the discussion to any new subject. This multi-agent setup supports two to four dynamic agents, automatically assigning tension-aware roles to drive diverse perspectives and structured dialogue.

The best way to preserve minority viewpoints is through structured disagreement protocols that generate minority reports. By implementing quality gates and position declarations, dissenting opinions are documented and maintained even when outnumbered by the majority consensus.

Structured argument graphs require consistent quality scoring and explicit position declarations to function effectively. You should avoid this approach if your decision domain lacks conflicting viewpoints, as tension maps and steel-manning protocols add overhead when consensus is already present.