What it means
When advice diverges, the divergence is a record — the positions, the assumptions they divide on, the question that decides — and the decision waits for evidence. Two advisors agreeing is evidence about agreement; it settles nothing on its own.
How it works
The writer (apps/majordomus-cli/src/reasoning/store.rs) refuses a conclusion on an
assessment with an unresolved disagreement, refuses a resolution that cites no evidence,
and refuses a conclusion that leaves out an answer its assessment received (it may reject
the answer in rejected, not ignore it). The review count is computed from the cited
consultations; there is no field to author it.
How to see it
majordomus reasoning record --file disagreement.json
majordomus reasoning explain <conclusion-id> # the experiment is in the chaintest/cases/732_disagreement_is_settled_by_evidence.sh consults two scripted advisors that
disagree, is refused while two of three positions agree, and concludes the minority's
position after an experiment.
What it does not cover
It cannot judge whether an experiment was a good one. It makes the experiment and its evidence part of the record, where a reviewer can judge it.
Why it exists
Majority vote over models is the failure mode of naive multi-model review: it rewards correlated errors. Making the count unable to decide anything is the repair (ADR 0098).