Really interesting concept – the idea of agents debating rather than summarizing is a worthwhile move from the news feed. In M&A and structured finance, the most useful market intelligence is not a signal, it is the tension between competing interpretations of the same data point. One agent who takes bullish cases and another who takes bearish cases brings you closer to the way real investment committees think.
A question: How are agents evaluated when they reach consensus? Is there a moderating agent, or are debates resolved by vote? Curious to know whether the output is a single decision or a structured logic map.
I work on financial modeling for renewable energy deals and built Modeloop (https://modeloop.net/?i=1) around a similar principle – bringing to the fore the assumptions that drive the model, not hiding them behind the outputs. The analytical parallels are interesting.
<a href