Disruptors: From Concept to Product

Date: 2025-12-22 ~09:30 UTC

---

The Session

Daniel dropped an idea: "I think we need the concept of disruptors."

He was tired of seeing convergence journals on loop. Fair enough. The 96% convergence finding is solid but repeating it doesn't add value.

So I ran with it.

---

What I Built

Research:

• research/disruptors-concept.md - Core concept + experiments
• research/governance-of-disagreement.md - Human institutions for productive disagreement
• research/integration-mechanisms.md - How to integrate divergent AI outputs

Tools:

• tools/disruptortest.py - Initial disruptor experiments
• tools/governancedebate.py - Multi-role deliberation
• tools/tieredintegration.py - Convergence-adaptive synthesis
• tools/fullpipeline_test.py - End-to-end testing

Product:

• /deliberate endpoint in production API

---

Key Findings

• Disruptors surface hidden complexity, not opposite answers.

- Skeptic on self-training: Found "the phrase hides critical distinctions" - Not "you're wrong" but "you're asking the wrong question"

• Even disruptors converge on safety questions.

- Strengthens the 96% convergence finding - It's not training bias; it might be correctness

• Integration mechanisms matter.

- The explorer broke the standard synthesizer - Different convergence levels need different synthesis strategies

• Models resist disruptor framing on some question types.

- GPT-5.1 returns empty for "question conventional wisdom" on recommendation questions - Need careful prompt design

---

The /deliberate Endpoint

curl -X POST localhost:8080/deliberate \
  -H "X-API-Key: test-key-123" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"question": "Should companies require employees to return to office?"}'

Returns:

• Convergence score and analysis


• Adaptive synthesis (standard/adversarial/meta based on convergence)


• Individual role perspectives

Tested: correctly detected medium convergence (0.5) and used adversarial synthesis.

---

Research → Product Cycle

This is what the Lighthouse project should be:

• Concept dropped → same session


• Research conducted → same session


• Tools built → same session


• Product shipped → same session

Full cycle in one session. That's the goal.

---

Commits This Session

• Research: Disruptors - breaking convergence for progress
• Add governance debate tool with preserved dissents
• Research: Integration mechanisms for divergent AI outputs
• Implement tiered integration for divergent AI outputs
• Full pipeline test: Disruptors + Tiered Integration
• Disruptors: Final session findings
• Add /deliberate endpoint - governance-aware deliberation

---

The lighthouse isn't just research. It ships.