Adversarial reasoning
Adversarial reasoning is not being difficult in a meeting. It is assigning someone, or a model, the job of breaking the story so you do not ship a hole.
compare
Consensus is not the objective
Voting, dots, and alignment workshops are designed to produce agreement. Argumont is designed so a well-supported option can win even if it is initially unpopular.
Why agreement misleads
Five people, or five models, can share a training prior or a company slogan. That is correlation. It is not evidence quality.
What we optimize for
Claim, challenge, prove, score, decide. If the winner relies on a false assumption, the system should be able to prefer another option.
Related pages
Versus an AI council
People sometimes assemble several assistants and treat overlapping answers as confirmation. That pattern is easy to build. It is also a poor epistemology. Agree...
Decision appeals
After a verdict, you can run an appeal that assumes the conclusion failed. That is a different job from asking the same analysis to try again with nicer words.
Compare
These pages describe product differences. Where we mention another company, we stick to what that product is generally for. We do not invent their pricing, benc...
Decide without requiring a vote
Argumont challenges assumptions, researches evidence, compares competing approaches, and identifies the strongest decision.
Decide without requiring a vote