Augle doesn't ask a single model for an answer. It routes your question through a multi-agent ensemble — each agent with a defined role, fixed dispatch order, and typed output contract — across three deliberation phases before any finding is produced.
Agents don't run in parallel. Each phase produces a structured output that constrains the next. The Methodologist's confidence bounds become hard limits on the Synthesizer. The Contrarian's unresolved objections surface verbatim in the final finding.
The Cartographer decomposes the question into settled ground, contested terrain, and unknown territory — producing evidence nodes with preliminary confidence bounds. The Methodologist evaluates validity of each node across four dimensions. The Guardian authenticates every source in real time.
The Contrarian re-engages with a steelmanned version of every claim before challenging it. Each objection must specify a resolution condition and a strength classification — Strong, Moderate, or Speculative. Unresolved Strong objections carry forward to Phase 3 verbatim.
The Synthesizer anchors its conclusion exclusively to the structured evidence nodes registry — not the discourse thread. Temperature is locked at 0.0 for deterministic output. The Pragmatist converts the finding into actionable next steps within the Synthesizer's confidence ceiling.
Every agent operates under strict typed output contracts — permitted actions and forbidden actions are architectural constraints, not guidelines. No agent can produce conclusions outside its role. No agent can exceed the confidence ceiling set by the Methodologist.
The Guardian operates exclusively at phase boundaries. It does not produce research findings or participate in deliberation. Its model identity is hidden from all user-facing surfaces — including the other agents — to prevent anchoring effects. It holds halt authority over the entire session.
The only agent with a direct user-facing interface. Fires once at session initialization. Manages dispatch sequencing, phase transitions, and final delivery. Explicitly forbidden from editorializing or softening any agent's output.
Dispatched first in every phase. Produces a five-component landscape: restated question, scope boundaries, evidence terrain map (settled / contested / unknown), evidence nodes with source and limitations, and a knowledge gap register.
Evaluates each evidence node across four dimensions: internal validity, external validity, construct validity, and methodology-claim match. Issues confidence bounds — Established, Probable, Contested, or Gap — as hard constraints on the Synthesizer. Cannot be overridden.
Runs at maximum temperature to maximize output variation and reduce sycophantic convergence. Must steelman every claim before challenging it. Each objection specifies a resolution condition and a strength grade. Unresolved Strong objections appear verbatim in the final output.
Temperature is locked at zero — a hard architectural requirement for deterministic verdict production. Anchors its conclusion exclusively to the structured evidence nodes registry, not the discourse thread. Subject to three inviolable constraints that cannot be overridden by any other agent.
Fires in Phase 3 only. Converts the Synthesizer's finding into actionable output tailored to the user's specific context. Inherits the Synthesizer's confidence ceiling as an absolute constraint — cannot produce recommendations more confident than the synthesis permits.
Augle doesn't produce a single confidence score — it produces a structured evidence record. Each node carries a grade issued by the Methodologist. Each unresolved objection from the Contrarian appears verbatim in the output alongside the finding that triggered it.
Evidence confidence grades
Contrarian objections · live session
"The notification-triggered self-report measures post-interruption attentional recovery, not naturalistic attention — causally distinct constructs. The thesis conflates them throughout."
Resolution condition: Direct comparison study of notification-triggered vs. researcher-initiated ESM on attentional outcomes
"The innovation claim may not be differentiated from the 2024 Friederici lab publication with functionally equivalent architecture."
Resolved: Innovation reframed to structural differentiation in Phase 2
"The 3-item Likert operationalisation of attentional state has no published reliability data for smartphone delivery contexts."
Resolution condition: Psychometric validation study for smartphone-delivered attentional measures
The multi-agent ensemble runs the same way every session. What adapts is the Guardian's domain-specific integrity configuration, tuned to the field the question sits in.
Designed for the research questions that don't resolve to a binary outcome — grant applications, dissertation defences, policy analysis, clinical evidence reviews, investment thesis validation. Document ingestion supported. Guardian operates in domain-specific integrity mode.
Source Verification Service, flag classification, halt authority, domain-specific integrity modes, and the reasoning behind hidden model identity.
Read more →The full phase-by-phase breakdown — what each agent produces, what constraints carry forward, and how the structured output protocol works across rounds.
Read more →Full specifications for each agent — model assignment, temperature rationale, permitted actions, forbidden actions, and dispatch order logic.
Read more →The four confidence grades, how the Methodologist issues them as hard constraints, how Contrarian objections are classified and preserved, and what the Ledger records.
Read more →Join waitlist and run a session on a question that matters to your work.