Colay / Product
When multiple AI models are more useful than one
Evaluate Consensus by the mistakes it helps you notice and the cost of that review. This series contains 12 distinct analyses of research, risks and working practices, with numbers, primary-source links and the limits of each conclusion.
What we mean by Consensus
In Colay, Consensus is a discussion among participating agents followed by a coordinating agent’s synthesis. Research also studies other designs: multiple answers from one model, voting, debate, routing and layered aggregation. These studies help frame useful questions, but results from one design do not automatically transfer to another.
A useful discussion can produce more than a combined answer. It can expose a disagreement, reveal a faulty assumption or give you a reason to stop and verify a source. Agreement alone does not establish correctness: agents may repeat a common error or accept a persuasive but invalid argument.
What experiments show
Four analyses distinguish debate, repeated sampling and answer aggregation. They cover positive findings and cases where simpler voting beats discussion. Every result needs its task, model, number of attempts and evaluation method.
What a single answer can hide
A convincing answer may invent a fact, accommodate the user’s position or cite a source that does not support its conclusion. A second opinion can prompt a check, but the quality of that check depends on evidence and human action. These articles examine distinct failure mechanisms rather than treating all AI errors as the same problem.
How to decide when to use it
The cost of a mistake, credit usage, waiting time and data access belong in the same decision. These articles provide illustrative calculations, a paired evaluation design for your tasks and an analysis of multi-agent threats. Illustrative numbers are labelled separately; they are not Colay customer statistics.
Where to start with your own task
Choose a task whose result you can check, such as comparing options against a document with known requirements. Before running it, write down the criteria: essential facts, what counts as an error and which conclusions require support. Save the single-model answer and the Consensus result alongside usage and review time.
An example request: “Use the attached evidence. Identify disputed assumptions, propose an alternative explanation and list missing facts. Preserve material disagreements in the final answer and state what a person must verify.” This is a task instruction, not a promise that the system will always follow it without mistakes.
Start with the evaluation article when choosing a mode for recurring work, the economics article when credits are your main concern, or the source-verification analysis when preparing factual material for other people.
Bring your next question to Colay
Choose a model, use Auto, or bring several perspectives together with Consensus.