Multi-Model Debate

AI Committee

Make the models argue it out, then return one reasoned recommendation.

Three opinions are easy to get. A conclusion is harder. The AI Committee makes Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT debate a single stock — critiquing each other across rounds — and then has a synthesizer of your choice weigh the debate and deliver one recommendation, with the agreements, the dissent, and the open risks laid out.

Join Waiting List

How the Debate Works

Three models on the bench · two argue · the neutral third judges

Claude ChatGPT Gemini Diagram shows a 3-model run; with 2 models both debate and one of them synthesizes.

Two Models or Three

The roster decides who debates and who judges

2 MODELS

Both debate, one concludes

With two models on the bench, both argue across the rounds and one of them — your chosen synthesizer — writes the conclusion. There is no third party available to stay neutral, so the synthesizer's conservative-by-default instruction does the balancing.

3 MODELS

Two debate, the third judges

With all three models, the synthesizer steps out of the debate entirely and judges it. Because the judge never argued a side, the final call carries no self-bias — the two debaters do all the arguing, and the judge is called only twice: once for its base read and once for the verdict.

Key Capabilities

What the committee does for you

Models Debate, They Don't Just Vote

Instead of showing three opinions side by side, the committee makes the models critique each other across one or two rounds — each one both challenges the others and defends its own thesis against their critiques.

Impartial Judge With Three Models

When all three of Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT are on the bench, your chosen synthesizer steps out of the debate and judges it. Two models argue; the neutral third weighs the evidence and concludes — no self-bias.

You Pick the Synthesizer

Choose Claude, Gemini, or ChatGPT to write the final verdict. The synthesizer is instructed to prefer a conservative call when evidence is mixed, and to name the strongest agreement and the key unresolved disagreement.

One Conclusion, Fully Sourced

The committee returns a single recommendation with a confidence score and an agreement level (low / medium / high), plus the points of consensus, the dissent, and the unresolved risks that would change the call.

Manual and Cost-Aware

The debate only runs on demand and only when at least two models produced a base analysis. Critique and synthesis prompts are compacted, and Gemini debaters use the fast model to keep the extra cost low.

Cached and Self-Invalidating

The committee verdict is cached per symbol alongside each model's individual analysis. Re-running a single provider clears the stale committee result so you never see a consensus built on old data.