Adversarial Review — Multi-Model Panel

Submits the specification, the technical plan and the generated tasks to a panel of independent models, each instructed to break the work rather than approve it. The individual critiques are then cross-compared: what several models find independently is almost certainly a real defect, what they disagree about marks a genuinely contested decision that a single reviewer would have hidden behind a confident answer.

Why a panel

A single reviewer — however capable — is accommodating by construction and has stable blind spots. Models trained on different data fail in different places, so:

• Convergent findings (found by 2+ reviewers, independently) are treated as real defects.
• Divergent findings (found by exactly one, or actively contradicted) are treated as contested areas: they are reported as open questions, not as defects.

The panel never negotiates. Each reviewer works in isolation, without seeing the others' output; the comparison happens afterwards, in this session.