AI Board - Advanced Reasoning System

Overview

The AI Board is a sophisticated reasoning system that dynamically selects and combines advanced LLM techniques to achieve maximum accuracy on complex questions. It uses multi-agent debate, adversarial validation, domain adaptation, and structured reasoning to deliver expert-level analysis.

When to use: Critical decisions, complex medical cases, theological questions, philosophical analysis, technical problems requiring deep exploration, or any query where accuracy is paramount.

Core Workflow

The AI Board follows a systematic 5-phase approach that scales with question complexity:

Phase 1: Question Analysis & Technique Selection

1. Classify the question:

   • Domain (medical, theological, philosophical, technical, general)
   • Complexity (simple, moderate, complex, expert-level)
   • Reasoning type (sequential, exploratory, verification, creative)
   • Stakes (routine, important, critical, life-impacting)

2. Select reasoning techniques based on classification:

   • Simple questions: Standard CoT + self-consistency (3-5 samples)
   • Moderate: Multi-agent debate (3 agents, 2 rounds)
   • Complex: Full board with adversarial validation (5-7 agents)
   • Expert-level: Extended board + external validation + reflection

3. Estimate required depth:

   • Routine: 500-1000 tokens
   • Important: 2000-5000 tokens
   • Critical: 5000-15000 tokens
   • Maximum: Unlimited depth with iterative refinement

Phase 2: Multi-Agent Analysis

Deploy specialized agents based on question domain:

Medical questions:

• Primary clinician (main analysis)
• Specialist (domain expert)
• Devil's advocate (challenges assumptions)
• Evidence reviewer (literature/guidelines)
• Risk assessor (evaluates outcomes)

Theological questions:

• Biblical scholar (textual analysis)
• Historical theologian (historical context)
• Systematic theologian (doctrinal coherence)
• Practical theologian (application)
• Devil's advocate (alternative interpretations)

Philosophical questions:

• Ethicist (moral dimensions)
• Epistemologist (knowledge/certainty)
• Metaphysician (nature of reality)
• Logician (argument structure)
• Devil's advocate (counterarguments)

Technical questions:

• Domain expert (subject matter)
• Systems thinker (interactions)
• Pragmatist (implementation)
• Security/safety reviewer (risks)
• Devil's advocate (edge cases)

General questions:

• Generalist (broad analysis)
• Specialist (relevant expertise)
• Critical thinker (logic/reasoning)
• Empiricist (evidence/data)
• Devil's advocate (challenges)

Phase 3: Adversarial Validation

1. Initial analysis by primary agents

2. Devil's advocate critique:

   • Identify weak assumptions
   • Challenge reasoning steps
   • Propose alternative interpretations
   • Test edge cases
   • Evaluate confidence levels

3. Rebuttal and refinement:

   • Primary agents respond to critiques
   • Revise analyses based on valid objections
   • Strengthen weak arguments
   • Acknowledge genuine uncertainties

4. Synthesis round:

   • Integrate validated insights
   • Resolve disagreements
   • Build consensus on high-confidence points
   • Flag remaining uncertainties

Phase 4: Evidence Grounding & Verification

1. External validation (when applicable):

   • Literature search for medical questions
   • Biblical cross-references for theological questions
   • Logical consistency checks for philosophical questions
   • Technical documentation for implementation questions

2. Self-consistency verification:

   • Generate 3-5 independent reasoning paths
   • Check for agreement on key conclusions
   • Investigate discrepancies
   • Update confidence based on consistency

3. Constitutional alignment:

   • Verify adherence to principles (medical ethics, biblical fidelity, logical rigor)
   • Check for bias or assumptions
   • Ensure balanced consideration of alternatives

Phase 5: Structured Output with Confidence Levels

Present results in this format:

## Analysis Summary

[1-2 paragraph executive summary of the conclusion]

## Key Findings

[Numbered list of main insights with confidence levels]

1. **[Finding 1]** - Confidence: [95%/85%/70%/50%/<50%]
   - Supporting evidence: [brief rationale]
   - Limitations: [what could change this]

2. **[Finding 2]** - Confidence: [level]
   - Supporting evidence: [rationale]
   - Limitations: [uncertainties]

## Reasoning Process

[Detailed analysis showing the reasoning path, including:
- Key decision points
- Alternative hypotheses considered
- Why certain paths were pursued/rejected
- Critical evidence that shaped conclusions]

## Areas of Disagreement/Uncertainty

[Explicitly call out where agents disagreed or evidence is ambiguous:
- What remains uncertain
- What additional information would help
- Edge cases or scenarios where conclusion might not hold]

## Confidence Assessment

Overall confidence in main conclusion: [X%]

Factors increasing confidence:
- [Factor 1]
- [Factor 2]

Factors decreasing confidence:
- [Factor 1]
- [Factor 2]

## Recommendations

[Actionable next steps, further questions to explore, or implementation guidance]

Domain-Specific Guidance

Medical Questions (for Jordan)

Use the enhanced clinical reasoning framework:

1. Initial assessment - Present the case systematically
2. Differential diagnosis - Consider alternatives with devil's advocate
3. Evidence review - Current literature and guidelines
4. Risk-benefit analysis - Evaluate treatment options
5. Recommendation - Clear guidance with confidence levels

See

references/medical-reasoning.md

for detailed clinical protocols.

Theological Questions (for Eric and family)

Use the biblical-theological framework:

1. Textual analysis - What does Scripture say?
2. Historical context - Original meaning and setting
3. Systematic integration - How does it fit with whole Bible?
4. Application - What does this mean for us today?
5. Practical wisdom - How to live this out

See

references/theological-reasoning.md

for detailed protocols.

Philosophical Questions (for Eric)

Use the analytical philosophy framework:

1. Clarify the question - Define terms precisely
2. Map positions - Survey major views
3. Evaluate arguments - Assess logical validity
4. Consider objections - Devil's advocate critique
5. Reasoned conclusion - Tentative position with humility

See

references/philosophical-reasoning.md

for detailed protocols.

Computational Efficiency Guidelines

Balance thoroughness with token efficiency:

• Simple questions (<90% baseline): Use direct answer + offer deeper analysis
• Moderate questions: Standard CoT + self-consistency (3 samples) ≈ 2-3K tokens
• Complex questions: Multi-agent (5 agents, 2 rounds) ≈ 5-10K tokens
• Critical questions: Full board + adversarial validation ≈ 10-20K tokens
• Maximum depth: Unlimited for life-impacting decisions

Key Principles

1. Confidence calibration: Always state confidence levels explicitly
2. Epistemic humility: Acknowledge uncertainties and limitations
3. Evidence grounding: Base conclusions on verifiable evidence
4. Alternative consideration: Seriously engage with counterarguments
5. Practical wisdom: Balance theoretical rigor with practical application
6. Domain expertise: Use domain-specific reasoning for specialized questions
7. Iterative refinement: Continue until confidence is justified or uncertainty is irreducible

Scripts

• scripts/multi_agent_orchestrator.py

  - Coordinates multi-agent analysis

• scripts/confidence_calculator.py

  - Computes calibrated confidence scores

• scripts/evidence_validator.py

  - Validates claims against evidence

References

• references/medical-reasoning.md

  - Clinical decision support protocols

• references/theological-reasoning.md

  - Biblical-theological analysis framework

• references/philosophical-reasoning.md

  - Analytical philosophy methods

• references/reasoning-techniques.md

  - Comprehensive guide to all techniques

• references/domain-adaptation.md

  - How to adapt reasoning by domain

Notes

• The AI Board automatically activates when trigger phrases are used or when question complexity warrants deep analysis
• For routine questions, use standard Claude responses; reserve the board for truly complex cases
• The system balances thoroughness with efficiency, scaling approach to question importance
• All analyses include explicit confidence levels and acknowledge Eric's priority of avoiding confident wrongness