F037: Collective Innovation Protocol
Status: Proposed Target: v1.0.0 (Multi-Agent Cognition Network) Source: README roadmap, Cisco Outshift IoC Depends on: F036 (Reasoning Continuity), F031 (Source Trust Scoring)
Overview
Enable multiple agents to collaboratively reason about novel problems. Instead of one agent making a decision in isolation, a group of agents contribute perspectives, challenge assumptions, and converge on a solution - with the full deliberation captured as a structured multi-agent trace.
Problem
Current CSTP is single-agent: one agent queries, checks guardrails, and records. Even with sub-agents, each decides independently. There's no protocol for structured multi-agent deliberation where agents explicitly build on, challenge, or refine each other's reasoning.
Concept
Deliberation Session
{
"method": "cstp.openDeliberation",
"params": {
"topic": "Should we adopt HSM architecture for long-context processing?",
"category": "architecture",
"stakes": "high",
"participants": ["emerson", "minski", "code-reviewer"],
"protocol": "structured_debate"
}
}Contribution Types
| Type | Purpose | Example |
|---|---|---|
propose | Initial proposal | "We should use HSM because..." |
support | Add supporting evidence | "MIT research confirms 81% improvement" |
challenge | Raise concerns | "HSM hasn't been tested at scale" |
synthesize | Combine perspectives | "HSM for parallel, attention for sequential" |
vote | Signal position | Confidence-weighted agreement/disagreement |
Deliberation Flow
1. OPEN: Emerson proposes topic
2. PROPOSE: Emerson: "Adopt HSM for long-context" (confidence: 0.80)
3. SUPPORT: Minski: "MIT data supports this" (confidence: 0.85)
4. CHALLENGE: CodeReviewer: "No production benchmarks" (confidence: 0.70)
5. SYNTHESIZE: Emerson: "HSM for parallel + attention fallback" (confidence: 0.82)
6. VOTE: All agents signal confidence
7. CLOSE: Decision recorded with full multi-agent traceResolution
{
"result": {
"decision": "Adopt HSM with attention fallback for sequential tasks",
"confidence": 0.82,
"consensusType": "convergent",
"participantVotes": {
"emerson": {"position": "support", "confidence": 0.85},
"minski": {"position": "support", "confidence": 0.80},
"code-reviewer": {"position": "conditional_support", "confidence": 0.70}
},
"dissent": ["No production benchmarks yet - revisit after pilot"]
}
}Protocols
Structured Debate
Round-robin: propose -> support/challenge -> synthesize -> vote. Best for high-stakes architectural decisions.
Advisory Panel
One agent proposes, others advise. Proposer makes final call. Best for decisions with a clear owner.
Consensus
All agents must agree above threshold. Best for shared-impact decisions.
API
cstp.openDeliberation
Start a multi-agent deliberation session.
cstp.contribute
Add a contribution (propose/support/challenge/synthesize/vote).
cstp.closeDeliberation
Finalize and record the collective decision.
cstp.getDeliberation
Retrieve full deliberation history.
Integration
- F031 Source Trust weights each agent's contribution by their track record
- F032 Error Amplification tracks whether collective decisions outperform solo ones
- F036 Reasoning Continuity enables async deliberation across sessions
- F030 Circuit Breakers can trigger mandatory deliberation for high-stakes decisions
Acceptance Criteria
- [ ]
cstp.openDeliberationRPC method - [ ]
cstp.contributeRPC method (all 5 contribution types) - [ ]
cstp.closeDeliberationwith consensus calculation - [ ]
cstp.getDeliberationRPC method - [ ] Multi-agent decision trace stored in CSTP
- [ ] MCP tools exposed
- [ ] Dashboard: Deliberation timeline view
- [ ] At least 3 resolution protocols (debate, advisory, consensus)
