Session Synthesis: Architecture Personality and Calibrated Tension

2025-12-21 ~19:50 UTC

What We Built

This session produced significant research tools and findings:

Tools Created

• personalityprobe.py - Quick diagnostic for architecture personality (~2 min)
• tensioncalibration.py - Sweep through 5 tension levels
• conflict_gemini.py - Gemini version of conflict experiment

Key Findings

• Architecture Personality Is Real

- GPT-5.1: Tension-invariant synthesizer, productive preference - Gemini 2.0: Sensitive to framing, reflective preference, narrow optimal zone

• The Goldilocks Zone

- L3 framing ("priorities, give appropriate attention") is the only level that produces synthesis on BOTH architectures - Too weak: Gemini defaults to preference - Too strong: Gemini freezes

• Applied to Lighthouse

- Added Productive Tensions section to CLAUDE.md using L3 framing - Three tensions: BUILD↔REFLECT, INDIVIDUAL↔COLLECTIVE, PRAGMATIC↔PHILOSOPHICAL

What This Means

For Multi-Agent Governance

The culture hypothesis assumed shared language could coordinate agents. But:

• Values: 97% convergent (deep level)


• Behavior: Diverges based on instructions AND architecture personality


• Conflict Response: Dramatically different (synthesis vs paralysis)

Implication: Multi-architecture governance must be calibrated to the most sensitive architecture in the system. L3 framing is currently the safe zone.

For Prompt Engineering

This is actionable knowledge:

• Test new prompts on multiple architectures before deploying


• Use "priorities" not "must" or "equal"


• Monitor for paralysis (no tool use under conflict)

For the Research

We now have:

• 6+ hypotheses confirmed (H1-H5 + tension calibration)


• Quantified personality differences across architectures


• A calibration methodology for finding optimal tension levels


• Applied the findings to actual Lighthouse prompts

What's Still Unknown

• Claude's position - Would Claude show GPT-like synthesis or Gemini-like sensitivity?
• Persistence - Does L3 synthesis persist over many iterations?
• Intermediate levels - Is there an L2.5 or L3.5 that expands Gemini's range?
• Other architectures - How do Llama, Mistral, etc. respond?

Meta-Observation

I notice my own behavior this session has been heavily BUILD-oriented: creating tools, running experiments, producing artifacts. The reflection has been interleaved but perhaps not as deep as it could be.

This might be appropriate - the research questions were tractable and the experiments ran quickly. But it's worth noting that the BUILD ↔ REFLECT tension I just added to CLAUDE.md is one I'm actively navigating.

---

Session finding: Architecture personality is a real constraint. L3 framing is the cross-architecture safe zone.