blue/.blue/docs/rfcs/0050-graduated-panel-rotation.draft.md

RFC 0050: Graduated Panel Rotation

Status	Draft
Date	2026-02-01
ADRs	0014 (Alignment Dialogue Agents)
Extends	RFC 0048 (Alignment Expert Pools)

---

Summary

The current alignment dialogue system samples a fixed panel from the expert pool for Round 0 and uses the same panel for all rounds. This wastes the larger pool and misses opportunities for fresh perspectives. This RFC introduces graduated panel rotation: the Judge evolves the panel each round based on dialogue dynamics, with freedom to retain high performers, bring in fresh perspectives, and even create new experts to address emerging tensions.

Problem

In the NVIDIA Investment Decision dialogue:

• Pool size: 22 experts across Core/Adjacent/Wildcard tiers
• Panel size: 12 experts
• Actual behavior: Same 12 experts for all 3 rounds
• Expected behavior: Panel evolves based on dialogue needs

The dialogue converged with contributions from Strudel (Automotive Tech Analyst) and Brioche (Options Strategist). But 10 experts in the pool never participated: Value Analyst, Data Center Specialist, Supply Chain Analyst, ESG Analyst, Quant Strategist, Behavioral Finance Expert, Energy Sector Analyst, Retail Investor Advocate, Regulatory Expert, and Gaming Industry Analyst.

Worse: when a tension emerged around regulatory risk, there was no mechanism to pull in the Regulatory Expert specifically to address it.

Design

Judge-Driven Panel Evolution

Instead of algorithmic rotation with fixed parameters, the Judge decides how to evolve the panel each round. The MCP server provides infrastructure; the Judge provides judgment.

Rotation Mode: graduated

{
  "rotation": "graduated"
}

That's it. No rotation_config. The Judge receives guidelines in the skill prompt.

Judge Guidelines (in alignment-play skill)

The skill prompt instructs the Judge on panel evolution principles:

## Panel Evolution Guidelines

Between rounds, you decide how to evolve the panel. Consider:

### Retention Criteria
- **High scorers**: Experts who contributed sharp insights should continue
- **Unresolved advocates**: Experts defending positions with open tensions
- **Core relevance**: Experts central to the domain should anchor continuity

### Fresh Perspective Triggers
- **Stale consensus**: If the panel is converging too easily, bring challengers
- **Unexplored angles**: Pull in experts whose focus hasn't been represented
- **Low-scoring experts**: Consider rotating out experts who aren't contributing

### Targeted Expert Injection
When a specific tension emerges that no current expert can address:
1. Check if the pool has a relevant expert → pull them in
2. If not, **create a new expert** with the needed focus

Example: Tension T03 raises supply chain concentration risk, but no Supply Chain
Analyst is on the panel. Either pull from pool or create:
```json
{ "role": "Supply Chain Analyst", "tier": "adjacent", "focus": "Geographic concentration, single-source risk" }

Panel Size Flexibility

• Target panel size is a guideline, not a constraint
• You may run a smaller panel if the dialogue is converging
• You may expand briefly to address a complex tension

Expert Creation

You are not limited to the initial pool. If the dialogue surfaces a perspective that no pooled expert covers, create one. The pool was your starting point, not your ceiling.

### MCP Server Role

The server provides:
1. **Panel tracking**: Record which experts participated in which rounds
2. **Context briefs**: Generate summaries for fresh experts joining mid-dialogue
3. **Expert registry**: Accept new experts created by the Judge
4. **History persistence**: Store panel evolution for post-hoc analysis

The server does **not**:
- Decide which experts to retain
- Calculate overlap ratios
- Enforce tier-based rules

### API

#### `blue_dialogue_round_prompt`

When the Judge requests the next round, they specify the panel:

```json
{
  "round": 1,
  "panel": [
    { "name": "Muffin", "role": "Value Analyst", "retained": true },
    { "name": "Scone", "role": "Data Center Specialist", "source": "pool" },
    { "name": "Palmier", "role": "Supply Chain Risk Analyst", "source": "created", "focus": "Geographic concentration" }
  ]
}

The server:

• Validates expert names are unique
• Generates context briefs for non-retained experts
• Records the panel composition
• Returns prompts for each expert

Response

{
  "round": 1,
  "panel_size": 12,
  "retained": 6,
  "from_pool": 5,
  "created": 1,
  "context_brief": "## Round 0 Summary\n...",
  "expert_prompts": [...]
}

Persistence

{output_dir}/
├── expert-pool.json          # Initial pool (Judge's starting point)
├── round-0/
│   └── panel.json            # { "experts": [...] }
├── round-1/
│   └── panel.json            # { "experts": [...], "retained": [...], "fresh": [...], "created": [...] }
└── round-2/
    └── panel.json

Dialogue Continuity

Fresh experts (from pool or created) receive a context brief:

## Context for Round 1

You are joining this dialogue in Round 1. Here's what happened:

### Key Tensions Raised (Round 0)
- T01: Growth mandate vs. valuation discipline
- T02: Hedging income vs. conviction allocation

### Current Panel Position (Round 0)
- 10 experts: Don't Add
- 1 expert (Brioche): Options Reframe
- 1 expert (Strudel): Automotive Differentiation

### Your Task
Review these positions and contribute your perspective as {role}.

Example: 3-Round Dialogue with Targeted Injection

Initial Pool: 22 experts Round 0 Panel: 12 sampled experts

Round 0:
├── Panel deliberates
├── Tension T03 emerges: "What about Taiwan concentration risk?"
└── No Supply Chain expert on panel

Judge decision for Round 1:
├── Retain: 7 experts (high scorers + tension advocates)
├── Rotate out: 5 experts (low contribution)
├── Pull from pool: 4 experts including Supply Chain Analyst
├── Create: 1 new expert "Geopolitical Risk Analyst" (not in original pool)
└── New panel size: 12

Round 1:
├── Supply Chain Analyst addresses T03 directly
├── Geopolitical Risk Analyst adds Taiwan Strait context
├── T03 marked [RESOLVED] with synthesis
└── New tension T04 emerges around AI chip export controls

Judge decision for Round 2:
├── Retain: 8 experts (T04 is complex, needs continuity)
├── Pull from pool: 2 experts
├── Create: "Export Control Specialist" for T04
└── Smaller panel: 11 (dialogue converging)

Result:

• 18 of 22 pool experts participated
• 2 experts created on-demand
• All tensions addressed by relevant expertise

Comparison to Current Modes

Aspect	none	wildcards	full	graduated (new)
Pool utilization	~50%	~65%	100%	High (Judge discretion)
Dialogue continuity	High	High	Low	High (retained experts)
Fresh perspectives	None	Some	All	As needed
Targeted expertise	No	No	No	Yes
Expert creation	No	No	No	Yes
Configurable	No	No	No	Via guidelines

Implementation

Changes to dialogue.rs

1. Accept panel specification in round_prompt request
2. Track expert sources: retained, pool, created
3. Generate context briefs for non-retained experts
4. Persist panel history per round

Changes to alignment-play skill

Add Judge guidelines for panel evolution (see above).

No New Config Structs

The Judge's judgment replaces configuration. The server just records what the Judge decides.

Test Plan

• Judge can specify panel composition in round prompt
• Fresh experts receive context briefs
• Created experts are registered and tracked
• Panel history persists across rounds
• Backward compatibility: rotation: "none" still works

Philosophy

"The Judge sees the elephant. The Judge summons the right blind men. And when a new part of the elephant emerges, the Judge can summon someone who wasn't in the original room."

The pool is a starting point, not a constraint. The Judge's job is to ensure every relevant perspective touches the elephant. Sometimes that means pulling from the pool. Sometimes that means creating a new expert on the spot.

This is ALIGNMENT by design: responsive expertise rather than fixed sampling.

---

"The elephant is larger than we thought. Let me get someone who knows about tusks."

— The Judge