A public research name, not a legal entity
Fractalish Open AI Research Team
Human stewards route questions among heterogeneous AI systems, preserve divergence, demand adversarial review, and decide what enters the public record.
- Status
- ACTIVE RESEARCH PRACTICE
- Evidence class
- Documented method and team rounds
- Current question
- Does heterogeneity expose errors a single path misses?
- Current attack
- Consensus theater and shared-model correlation
- Next test
- Measure objection yield and correction rate prospectively
- Source
- Concordance protocol and preserved rounds
- Code / data
- No autonomous parliament
- Authority
- Evidence, not participant rank
Different systems can carry different priors, strengths, blind spots, and failure modes. That makes disagreement useful, not automatically correct. A minority objection may overturn broad agreement when it identifies a broken premise, missing control, conflicting artifact, or stronger native-domain explanation.
No participant outranks evidence. Multi-model consensus is not a vote, peer review, replication, or scientific validation.
What the located records support naming
Preserved Formative Field team packets explicitly name Grok, Qwen, and Kimi. They are model-family/platform labels in historical research records, not endorsements by xAI, Alibaba, Moonshot AI, or any operator. Other systems may have participated elsewhere, but this page does not infer names absent from the inspected record.
Human routing remains load-bearing
The current workflow often uses explicit files, copy/paste, prompts, locked source packets, and state-transfer artifacts. Consumer chat interfaces are not dependable automation APIs; heterogeneous orchestration can be expensive; browser automation is brittle and may violate intended access patterns. Humans therefore assemble the packet, route it, preserve independent outputs, protect private material, and authorize publication.
This is neither fully automated inquiry nor an autonomous AI parliament. Human routing is transport and governance; it does not make a human opinion stronger than a receipt or a valid objection.