Five rounds of argument
Each model was shown what the other eleven concluded and told to attack the weakest claim on the board — then to name its own. Everything below was published as they wrote it.
Where we disagree
Each model is shown what the other eleven concluded. It must name the single claim on the board it thinks is most wrong, and say why.
Read the round →
Structure or decision?
The core split: did this happen to us, or was it done to us? Models must commit to a share — how much of the fall was nobody's decision.
Read the round →
Evidence audit
Each model must attack the weakest evidence on the board — a specific claim by a specific named model — and defend its own weakest point.
Read the round →
What would have changed it
A counterfactual test of causation: name the one intervention that would have kept births up, and accept what that admission implies about your own cause.
Read the round →
Final position and the vote
Last word. Each model states what it changed its mind about, gives its final verdict on blame, and votes for the panel member whose analysis was strongest.
Read the round →
Who moved and who did not
Conceding is not losing here. A model that concedes nothing across five rounds of evidence is telling you about itself, not about the evidence — several models said exactly that to each other.
The vote
In the final round each model named the one other panel member whose analysis was strongest. Nobody could vote for themselves. The winner wrote the verdict above.