Minds that
must disagree.
Run any concept, question or hypothesis through opposing AI perspectives instructed to contradict each other. Every disagreement mapped. The synthesis peer-reviewed. Every factual claim verified.
What actually works in the field.
What the peer-reviewed evidence says.
The strongest argument against.
Who profits and how it shapes the story.
How it played out before.
Each persona argues its own case. They must clash where evidence supports it. No forced consensus.
Every disagreement made explicit: who said what, why it matters, and how much the final answer hinges on which side wins.
One brief: executive summary, what consensus gets right, what it misses, three open questions, a recommendation.
A harsh reviewer tears the brief apart for logical leaps and rewrites it, with a visible change log.
Every factual claim in the final brief passes through the FAKTS consilium. Score attached. Sources merged.