One question, answers from multiple AI models

Choose the result you need first

Separate answers help reveal differences: which requirements each model notices, which options it proposes and what it overlooks. Discussion helps examine objections and produce a shared conclusion. Choose the mode that serves the current step of your work.

Auto in Colay selects an answering agent for the request. It handles selection rather than producing several answers for comparison. When one model already gives a usable answer, another review should address a specific concern, such as an overlooked requirement.

Prepare a request you can compare fairly

An identical short question does not create identical conditions if the chats have different histories. Prepare a shared brief with source material, constraints, an answer format and review criteria. Leave out another model’s answer when you want separate initial perspectives.

Ask every participant for the same structure: recommendation, support in the supplied material, unknown conditions and a follow-up question. This helps you compare substance rather than length or presentation. Send corrections to the brief to every participant whose answer you are still comparing.

Worked example: choosing a booking system

Imagine a small studio choosing a client booking system. Three requirements are mandatory: support for multiple staff members, rescheduling and customer-data export. You have documents from two suppliers, but no confirmed information about integration with the current website. This is an illustrative scenario with no named suppliers or quoted prices.

One model may explain the administrator’s workflow well. Another may spot an export restriction. A third may ask about integration. A useful comparison connects each conclusion to the supplied documents. Mark a praised capability as unconfirmed when the supplier’s material does not establish it.

Do not choose an option simply because more participants favor it. Check the mandatory requirements first. One model noticing a blocking restriction may contribute more than several polished recommendations.

A prompt for individual answers

“Help choose between [A and B]. Task: [what we need to achieve]. Mandatory requirements: [list]. Here is the same material for every participant: [insert evidence]. Use this format: recommendation; supporting evidence with its location in the material; failed or unknown requirements; question for the supplier. If the documentation does not establish a capability, write ‘unknown.’ Do not invent scores or prices.”

Open Colay, choose participants and select Ask separately. The mode opens an individual chat for each selected agent. You can inspect the answers separately; this does not require a side-by-side comparison table in the interface. Check the available models in the app before starting.

Record the differences that matter

Fill in a short table yourself or ask an agent to prepare it from excerpts you provide. In either case, check the table against the original answers: compression can remove a crucial qualification. If the answers do not differ in substance, extra comparison may add little to this task.

• Which mandatory requirement was checked and what supports the finding.
• Where the recommendations agree but evidence is still missing.
• Which disagreement affects the choice and which concerns only wording.
• What you need to ask the supplier or verify yourself.

Use Consensus when there is something to resolve

Prepare a shared request containing the original brief, relevant excerpts and disagreements. For example: “Review these answers against the mandatory requirements. Preserve unresolved questions. Recommend an option only within the evidence supplied, and explain which missing fact could change the choice.” Supply the material explicitly; do not assume separate chats are automatically connected as sources.

Consensus organizes the discussion and a coordinating agent produces the conclusion. Check that material limitations survive the synthesis. Model agreement does not establish that a supplier offers a feature; documentation or your own verification must support that claim.

Decide whether the comparison is worth repeating

Start with a small number of participants and one task. Record credit usage, reading time and differences you actually discovered. Colay uses credits and limits, so there is no fixed question allowance that applies to every combination of models.

Comparison earns its place when it helps you decide, catches an omission or reduces manual work. If it only gives you more similar prose to read, simplify the process. Keep the shared brief and criteria for next time; they are more useful than a habit of always running every available model.