{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "builder_plan": {
    "scenario": "A workflow needs specialist review, but extra agents may add more cost than useful work.",
    "change": "Test the proposed division of work against a single-agent implementation.",
    "baseline": "One agent with the same tools and an equal total token and time budget.",
    "steps": [
      "Locate the paper's implementation and check its license, model support, data needs, and hardware requirements. Stop here if you cannot obtain the required artifacts.",
      "Save a small set of representative product tasks and expected outcomes. Keep evaluation tasks out of any training or tuning, and choose quality and cost limits before running.",
      "Run the baseline and the proposed change on identical inputs. Keep other settings fixed and repeat paired runs to expose variation.",
      "Save per-task outputs, failures, timings, and all usage costs. Review regressions before expanding the test."
    ],
    "measure": "Accepted outputs, coordination failures, wall-clock time, and total cost across all agents.",
    "decision": "Keep the change only if it meets your preselected quality and latency limits and improves the metric you care about after setup and operating costs. Otherwise retain the baseline. This is an exploration plan, not a validated recommendation."
  },
  "builder_review": null,
  "arxiv_id": "2609.40324",
  "title": "Cogentic: Multi-Agent Orchestration for Automated Proof Discovery",
  "summary": "The method replaces single-shot prompting of a frontier model with an orchestrated loop in which independent provers explore distinct proof directions, adversarial verifiers check their output, and confirmed intermediate results accumulate in a persistent ledger. It costs substantial API spend and orchestration complexity, since it depends on a frontier proprietary model (Gemini) running many parallel agent rounds rather than any locally trainable component, and no inference-cost or efficiency figures are reported. It can fail silently if adversarial verification misses subtle errors, since correctness of produced proofs still required independent expert validation, and the approach targets open research mathematics rather than typical production ML workloads.",
  "rationale": "The technique is an API-dependent research-agent harness with no quantified efficiency claim and a narrow target domain (research-level math), so it offers little directly adoptable value for a constrained-infrastructure production team, though its prove-verify-ledger pattern is worth tracking.",
  "technique": "Multi-agent prove-verify loop for proof discovery",
  "family": "orquestracao_multiagente",
  "recommendation": "observar",
  "published": "2026-09-30",
  "as_of": "2026-10-18",
  "editorial_status": "indexed",
  "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.40324",
  "independent_implementations": 0,
  "total_implementations": 1,
  "stars": 10,
  "citations": null,
  "claims": [
    {
      "claim_id": "claim-01",
      "statement": "The method replaces single-shot prompting of a frontier model with an orchestrated loop in which independent provers explore distinct proof directions, adversarial verifiers check their output, and confirmed intermediate results accumulate in a persistent ledger. It costs substantial API spend and orchestration complexity, since it depends on a frontier proprietary model (Gemini) running many parallel agent rounds rather than any locally trainable component, and no inference-cost or efficiency figures are reported. It can fail silently if adversarial verification misses subtle errors, since correctness of produced proofs still required independent expert validation, and the approach targets open research mathematics rather than typical production ML workloads.",
      "basis": "inferred",
      "result": "",
      "baseline": "",
      "conditions": "",
      "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.40324",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    }
  ],
  "exposure_map": [
    {
      "dimension": "quality",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "compute",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "latency",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "operations",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "compatibility",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "security",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "data_and_training",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "reproducibility",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    }
  ],
  "risks": [],
  "minimum_test": [],
  "open_questions": [],
  "independent_tests": [],
  "lab_reproductions": [],
  "report_available": false,
  "validation_tier": "unknown",
  "evidence_tier": "unknown",
  "infrastructure_basis": "unknown",
  "equations": [],
  "equations_status": "not_fetched",
  "core_kind": "",
  "equations_fetched_at": "",
  "equations_source_url": "",
  "equations_source_sha256": "",
  "exposures_reviewed_at": "",
  "exposures_source_sha256": ""
}