We run thousands of AI councils. We publish the ones worth your time — where the models disagree, change their minds, or surface something none of them saw coming.
A maintenance engineer wanted to insulate a hot pipe to cut its heat loss. Wrapping it would raise the loss 37%. One AI would have sent the plant to the worst possible fix. Five models, debating, caught it.
Five models answered a forecast-blending problem. Three matched to three decimals. Then the council was asked what its own agreement was worth, and priced it at 1.04 opinions.
A barge operator asked six AI models to price a contract clause. The model that insisted on sticking to the data told him a nine-day grace period ends his risk. It doesn't.
Three ordinary-looking correlations that no dataset can produce. One AI read the impossible result as strength and cut the ski patrol; the council caught it.
Three AIs agreed a 70%-accurate pianist needs about 115 tries to land ten flawless run-throughs in a row. One called that "relatively low." The council caught why the whole drill is the wrong test.
Eight backend services with a 200 ms p95 fan out to one page. The council proved the page's p95 is really 286 ms, caught one AI arguing the correlation fix backwards, and refused to close the ticket.
A hot-dog vendor's partner says cook the average. Three AIs found the profit-maximizing number runs the other way — and the strongest one had to break its own argument to see it.
A shop trusted a 373 kN column rating and a simple lower-of-Euler-or-squash rule. Five AIs debated it, held the line, and found the rating was never real.