ASSIGNMENTMatter brief
Question · standard · record
— HOW INTERSECT + EX MULTIS REVIEW A CLAIM
The right pathway.
Different minds.
One record.
INTERSECT identifies the domain, jurisdiction, risk, authority order, and research depth first. Separate specialists then build, challenge, and verify the case while the ledger keeps every claim attributable.
THE REVIEW SYSTEM
Three distinct reviews.
One traceable judgment.
EX MULTIS · REVIEW SYSTEM
INDEPENDENTLead analysis
Build the strongest supported case
INDEPENDENTCouncil critique
Test reasoning and alternatives
INDEPENDENTSource review
Verify authority and provenance
No viewpoint is overwritten.
OUTPUTCouncil findings
Attributed claims
Matter briefThe question, standard, and source record are fixed.
↓Independent council workLead analysis, critique, and source review develop separately.
↓Reconcile findingsAgreement and dissent are compared without overwriting either.
↓Council findingsAttributed claims move into the ledger.
Operational definitions
What “independent review” means here.
Separate first passes
Each selected AI provider receives the same assignment and authorized context, plus a distinct role. It does not receive another provider's answer before submitting its initial report.
- Initial reports run in parallel.
- Provider and model identity remain attached.
- Reports meet only at comparison and synthesis.
Deliberately staged cross-review
Legal Research, IRAC Review, Authority Treatment, and Environmental Regulatory Review use a visible sequence: authority research, analysis, opposing challenge, and record verification.
- Later stages receive the relevant earlier work.
- The authority packet is shared intentionally.
- This is cross-review, not blind independence.
From reports to one answer
A result must survive four gates.
- 01Validate
Malformed or failed reports are excluded. A standard review needs at least two valid provider reports to continue.
- 02Compare
A designated synthesis model receives the valid reports, weighs evidence instead of votes, and keeps material disagreement visible.
- 03Recheck
Evidence gaps, provider failures, high-impact subject matter, and material uncertainty can trigger a hold or targeted additional work.
- 04Report limits
The answer retains its sources, unresolved questions, disagreement, and run-integrity status rather than presenting certainty that the record did not earn.
Separated judgment
A reviewer forms its initial position without seeing peer answers on parallel routes. Shared prompts, files, training patterns, or public sources can still produce correlated errors.
Supported in this run
Available reports or retained evidence support the claim. The label does not mean universally proven, complete, or guaranteed current.
Agreement, not truth
Two or more valid reports align. Source overlap and confident repetition do not become independent proof merely because several models repeat them.
Preserved, not averaged away
Material competing positions and unresolved questions remain part of the record even when the final answer recommends one course.
Route before research
INTERSECT selects the specialist branches, authority hierarchy, rigor, and missing prerequisites for the actual problem.
Review before synthesis
Contributors form their positions separately so agreement is earned instead of inherited.
Claims keep their history
Reasoning, evidence, source status, and dissent stay attached to every material assertion.
You make the final call
The system organizes the record and exposes uncertainty; responsibility remains with the person.