AI REVIEW PANEL: MAKING DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES USEFUL Work architected at Fifth9 Review mechanism — The public panel description covers review. Broader mutation and evolution experiments are separate from this capability. The panel separates review from adjudication. Different models examine the same subject; their findings are then challenged, consolidated and checked against that subject. The useful output is a traceable set of dispositions, not a vote that declares the work correct. How can different AI perspectives help us examine a piece of work? Turn proposed concerns from different reviewers into findings that a person can assess and act on. Different models can offer different perspectives, but repeated model instances are not automatically independent reviewers. The composition of the panel and any missing participation matter when interpreting the breadth of the review. BUILDING BLOCKS Review subject Define exactly what the panel is examining. Receives: A work product, its context and review questions. Produces: A shared review brief. Model panel Bring different model perspectives to the same subject. Receives: The review brief and available reviewers. Produces: Separately produced findings and their reasoning. Challenge and verification Examine whether each concern is supported. Receives: Proposed findings and the work itself. Produces: Confirmed concerns, rejected claims and unresolved questions. Findings record Consolidate repeated concerns and preserve their treatment. Receives: Verified findings and review decisions. Produces: Prioritised findings with clear dispositions. Decision handoff Give the responsible person useful input for the next action. Receives: The findings record and remaining uncertainty. Produces: A basis for revising, accepting or investigating the work. WALKTHROUGH 1. Define the subject Give reviewers the same bounded piece of actual work and the question they are meant to examine. An ambiguous review scope can produce impressive-sounding concerns that are irrelevant to the decision. 2. Collect perspectives Obtain findings from the available model panel. Record the perspectives that actually participate. Availability and model-family diversity affect how the review should be interpreted, so a narrower panel should remain visible as such. 3. Check the concerns Investigate the proposed findings against the artifact and supporting evidence. A concern may be supported, disproved or still uncertain; persuasive wording and repeated agreement do not decide that disposition. 4. Consolidate the result Combine duplicates, prioritise the concerns that remain useful and record each disposition. Preserve enough reasoning to explain why an item was accepted, revised, deferred or rejected. 5. Inform a decision Give the person or workflow responsible for the next action the findings and their dispositions. The panel helps determine what deserves attention; accepting a finding and authorising a release remain separate decisions. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE — Review an architectural change A team wants to review an architectural change. Several reviewers raise concerns. Examination rejects one unsupported claim, combines two duplicates and identifies a test worth adding. The recorded disposition explains what changed and why. If a reviewer cannot participate, the result should expose the narrower review. If a finding lacks support, it should remain a question or be rejected rather than counted as a confirmed defect. A smaller, clearer set of findings with reasons for their disposition. A generic review pattern, not a claim that model agreement eliminates defects. Why these responsibilities are separate Findings become useful through examination. A concern needs enough connection to the work to be investigated, duplicates need to be combined, and dispositions need reasons. Agreement can guide attention; it does not replace verification or transfer release authority to the panel. SCOPE Cross-model review composition and recorded participation. Challenge, deduplication and prioritisation of proposed findings. REMAINING QUESTIONS Which findings change the work usefully? How do we recognise a weak or insufficiently diverse panel? Which lessons from a review help with a later one? BOUNDARIES AND EVALUATION Perspective diversity: Several agents are not necessarily several independent perspectives. Evaluation: Record which perspectives actually participated, including missing or unavailable reviewers. Supported findings: Model agreement does not establish correctness. Evaluation: Trace each retained finding to the work that supports it and record unsupported or duplicate concerns. Release authority: A review result does not itself grant release authority. Evaluation: Keep the final decision with the responsible process and examine whether accepted findings improved the work. The aim is better judgement through useful disagreement, with findings connected to changes and lessons that improve subsequent work. AI Initiative — public architecture guide.