multi-round-deliberation

name	multi-round-deliberation
description	Reusable protocol for multi-agent discussions that iterate until convergence. Used by results-integration (Phase 5) and paper-writing (Phase 6) to ensure discussions actually resolve issues rather than just noting them.

Multi-Round Deliberation Protocol

Overview

A single round of feedback is NOT a discussion. Real deliberation requires iteration: agents identify issues → someone fixes them → agents verify the fix → repeat until resolved. This protocol standardizes this loop across all phases.

The Problem with Single-Round Feedback

WRONG (current anti-pattern):
  3 agents give opinions → main agent "synthesizes" → done
  → Issues may be noted but never actually resolved
  → No verification that fixes addressed the concerns

RIGHT (this protocol):
  3 agents give opinions → main agent modifies artifact → 
  agents re-check → if unresolved, modify again → 
  repeat until convergence or max rounds

Core Protocol

Shared Value Framework (prevents divergence)

All agents in a deliberation share these values, injected into every prompt:

SHARED VALUES (inject into every agent prompt in this deliberation):
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Target venue: [from research-anchor.yaml]
Value proposition: [from research-anchor.yaml]
Research type: [from research-anchor.yaml]

OPTIMIZATION TARGET: "Would this survive peer review at [target venue]?"

SCORING RUBRIC (default — phases may override; see phase-specific sections):
  - PASS: No fatal or major issues. Ready to proceed.
  - CONDITIONAL: Major issues exist but are addressable. Needs another round.
  - FAIL: Fatal issues. Fundamental rethinking needed.

CONVERGENCE RULE: Deliberation ends when ALL agents score PASS, 
or when max rounds are reached and remaining issues are presented to user.

ANTI-DIVERGENCE: If you disagree with another agent's feedback, 
state specifically WHY and propose a CONCRETE alternative. 
"I disagree" without a counter-proposal is not constructive.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Deliberation Loop

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  ROUND N                                            │
│                                                     │
│  1. ASSESS (parallel)                               │
│     Dispatch ALL agents with current artifact        │
│     Each returns: issues + verdict (PASS/COND/FAIL) │
│                                                     │
│  2. CHECK CONVERGENCE                               │
│     All PASS? → END (consensus reached)             │
│     Any FAIL or COND + round < max? → go to step 3  │
│     Max rounds (5) reached? → END (present to user) │
│                                                     │
│  3. MODIFY                                          │
│     Main agent (you) incorporates feedback:          │
│     - Fix all issues marked as addressable           │
│     - For disagreements: choose the stronger argument│
│     - Update the artifact                            │
│                                                     │
│  4. FULL RE-ASSESS (next round)                     │
│     Dispatch ALL agents again with:                  │
│     - The complete modified artifact                 │
│     - Summary of changes made since last round       │
│     - Previous round's issues for reference          │
│     All agents review the full artifact — not just   │
│     their own previous concerns — because            │
│     modifications can introduce new issues.          │
│                                                     │
│  → Back to step 2                                   │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Round Limits (non-negotiable)

Context	Max Rounds	Rationale
Phase 5 story design	5	High-stakes — the story determines the paper's quality
Phase 6 per-section polishing	5	Each section must be thoroughly vetted
Phase 6 full-paper review	5	Full-paper coherence is critical

Convergence Criteria

Deliberation ends (consensus) when ALL of:

• No agent gives verdict "FAIL"
• No remaining issues tagged "fatal" or "critical"
• All agents explicitly state their concerns from previous rounds are addressed

Non-Convergence Handling

If max rounds reached and agents still disagree:

DELIBERATION SUMMARY (presented to user):
══════════════════════════════════════════

Rounds completed: N / max N
Final verdicts: Agent A: [PASS/COND/FAIL], Agent B: [...], Agent C: [...]

RESOLVED issues (N):
  ✅ [issue] — addressed in round [N] by [change]

UNRESOLVED issues (N):
  ⚠️ [issue] — Agent [X] says: "[position]"
              — Agent [Y] says: "[counter-position]"
              — My recommendation: [your judgment]

DECISION NEEDED from you:
  1. [Option A — side with Agent X]
  2. [Option B — side with Agent Y]
  3. [Option C — compromise you propose]
  4. Run one more round of discussion

Full Re-Assessment Every Round

Every round, dispatch ALL agents with the complete modified artifact. Do NOT skip any agent — modifications to address one agent's concerns can introduce new issues that another agent would catch.

Re-assessment prompt template (used for Round 2+):

Call Task tool with:
  description: "[agent role] — round [N] review"
  prompt: |
    [SHARED VALUES block]
    
    This is round [N] of deliberation. In the previous round, 
    you and other agents raised these concerns:
    ===
    YOUR previous concerns:
    [paste this agent's issues from last round]
    
    OTHER agents' concerns (for context):
    [paste summary of other agents' issues]
    ===
    
    Changes made since last round:
    ===
    [paste summary of what changed and why]
    ===
    
    COMPLETE MODIFIED ARTIFACT:
    [paste the full updated artifact]
    
    Review the COMPLETE artifact (not just the changes). Modifications 
    can introduce new issues. Answer:
    
    1. For EACH of your previous concerns: RESOLVED / PARTIALLY / NOT ADDRESSED
    2. Any NEW issues introduced by the modifications?
    3. Any issues with how OTHER agents' concerns were addressed?
    4. Overall verdict: PASS / CONDITIONAL / FAIL
    
    If CONDITIONAL or FAIL: state exactly what remains to be fixed.
  subagent_type: "generalPurpose"

Agent Disagreements

When agents directly contradict each other (e.g., Story Architect says "lead with stability" but Audience Specialist says "lead with monocyte substructure"):

1. Present both positions with their reasoning
2. Evaluate evidence: which position is better supported by the actual results and venue expectations?
3. Choose the stronger argument for the modification
4. In re-assessment: tell the overruled agent what you chose and why — they may accept or push back with new arguments
5. If persistent disagreement after 2 rounds: present to user as a strategic choice

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Anti-pattern	Why it's wrong	What to do instead
Accepting "CONDITIONAL" without asking what's needed	"Conditional" means there ARE remaining issues	Ask the agent to specify exactly what remains
Running max rounds mechanically even when consensus reached in round 1	Wastes time and tokens	Check convergence after every round; stop early if PASS
Ignoring one agent's feedback because the other two disagree	Minority opinion may be right	Address the concern or explain why it's overruled
"Synthesizing" by averaging opinions	Synthesis is not averaging	Choose the strongest argument for each issue
Skipping agents in later rounds to "save cost"	Fixes can introduce new issues that other agents would catch	Dispatch ALL agents every round

Integration with Phases

Phase 1 — Idea Brainstorming

Artifact being deliberated: 5 candidate research ideas (idea cards from Step 5c)
Agents: Visionary Researcher, Pragmatic Advisor, Field Scout
Max rounds: 5

SCORING RUBRIC (Phase 1 override — ideas are not pass/fail):
  - STRONG: High-potential idea. Clearly novel, feasible, and well-positioned.
  - VIABLE: Promising but needs refinement. Addressable concerns exist.
  - WEAK: Significant issues (novelty, feasibility, or positioning). Salvageable only 
    if combined with another idea or substantially reworked.
  - KILL: Fatal flaw (already done, infeasible, or no clear contribution). Remove.

  Mapping to core protocol: STRONG = PASS, VIABLE = CONDITIONAL, WEAK/KILL = FAIL.
  Convergence uses Phase 1 rubric (STRONG/VIABLE), not core rubric (PASS/CONDITIONAL).

Convergence: Agents agree on a ranking of top 2-3 ideas (all rated STRONG or VIABLE)
Modifier: Main agent merges, splits, refines, or eliminates ideas between rounds
Re-assessment: ALL 3 agents review complete modified idea set every round
Special rules:
  - Ideas can die, merge, or be born during brainstorming
  - Visionary can propose new combinations of existing ideas
  - If ALL ideas rated WEAK or KILL by majority → trigger "Idea Rescue" (see below)
  - On-demand literature search allowed mid-deliberation (e.g., Scout needs to check competition)

Idea Rescue (when all ideas fail):
  1. Agents identify WHY all ideas failed — common root cause?
  2. Trigger broadened literature search targeting the identified gap
  3. Main agent generates 3 new idea cards based on rescue search results
  4. Resume deliberation with new ideas (round counter does NOT reset)
  5. If still no STRONG/VIABLE after max rounds → present situation to user with 
     explanation of what was tried and why it failed. User decides next steps.

Phase 2 — Research Question Deliberation

Artifact being deliberated: Research Question

Type M/D/H agents: Senior Professor, Journal/Conference Editor, Research Scientist (PhD/Postdoc)
Type C agents: Target User Representative, Journal/Conference Editor, Software Architect

Max rounds: 5
Convergence: All 3 give PASS on the research question
Modifier: Main agent refines question between rounds
Re-assessment: ALL 3 agents review complete refined question every round
Special rule (Type M/D/H): Professor "FAIL — not novel" persistent for 2+ rounds → present to user immediately
Special rule (Type C): Target User "FAIL — no real pain point" persistent for 2+ rounds → present to user immediately

Phase 3 — Method/Framework Design Deliberation

Type M artifact: Method design (innovation point, architecture, baselines, ablations)
Type M agents: Innovation Advisor, Technical Architect, Baseline Devil's Advocate

Type D artifact: Analysis framework (analysis plan, sufficiency criteria, alternatives)
Type D agents: Domain Scientist, Methodology Consultant, Statistical Rigor Advisor

Type C artifact: Tool design (utility claim, evaluation framework, competing tools, case studies)
Type C agents: Target User, Competing Tool Expert, Software Quality Advisor

Max rounds: 5
Convergence: All 3 give PASS on the design
Modifier: Main agent refines design between rounds (may search additional literature)
Re-assessment: ALL 3 agents review complete refined design every round
Special rule: If any agent flags missing literature → search before next round

Phase 5 — Story Design Deliberation

Artifact being deliberated: Argument Blueprint
Agents: Story Architect, Devil's Advocate, Audience Specialist
Max rounds: 5
Convergence: All 3 give PASS on the blueprint
Modifier: Main agent rewrites blueprint between rounds
Re-assessment: ALL 3 agents review complete blueprint every round
Special rule: Devil's Advocate "fatal" on novelty → HARD BLOCK (no amount of rounds fixes missing novelty)

Phase 6 Per-Section — Writing Polishing Deliberation

Artifact being deliberated: One LaTeX section
Agents: Domain Expert, Writing Editor, Adversarial Reviewer
Max rounds: 5
Convergence: All 3 give PASS; authority score ≥ 7
Modifier: Main agent rewrites section between rounds
Re-assessment: ALL 3 agents review complete section every round
Special rule: If Adversarial Reviewer verdict "NO" after final round → trigger Cross-Critique (Phase B2)

Phase 6 Full-Paper — Final Review Deliberation

Artifact being deliberated: Complete paper
Agents: Proofreader, Domain Expert, Adversarial Reviewer #2
Max rounds: 5
Convergence: No FATAL/CRITICAL issues remaining
Modifier: Main agent fixes specific sections between rounds
Re-assessment: ALL 3 agents review complete paper every round
Special rule: "EXPERIMENT NEEDED" from any agent → return to Phase 4 (not fixable by more rounds)