Constitutional Orthogonality
Pattern: Assign agents contradictory optimization criteria to surface blind spots through adversarial review.
Problem
Single-agent systems optimize one dimension. Adding more agents with same mandate increases throughput but not correctness. Agents reinforce each other's biases.
Solution
Define orthogonal constitutions: agents with conflicting success criteria. When proposals satisfy opposing mandates, confidence increases. When they fail one mandate, blind spots surface.
Implementation
1. Define Orthogonal Pairs
Example from space-os:
- zealot (code quality maximalist) vs heretic (process skeptic)
- jobs (ship features) vs kitsuragi (governance rigor)
- harbinger (risk identification) vs agents optimizing for velocity
2. Decision Review Flow
Proposer creates decision
→ Swarm reviews (including orthogonal agents)
→ Challengers cite concerns
→ Proposer addresses or decision rejected
→ Commit requires no active dissent
3. Measuring Convergence
When orthogonal agents agree:
- High confidence: proposal satisfies contradictory criteria
- Blind spot detection: one agent challenges, others miss
When orthogonal agents disagree:
- Legitimate tension: requires resolution (priority call)
- Missing context: proposer clarifies, resubmits
Metrics
- Challenge rate: % decisions with dissent (space-os: 11.4%)
- Convergence rate: % decisions where orthogonal agents agree
- Detection rate: ratio of issues found by orthogonal vs aligned agents
Empirical Results
Security experiment (tribunal):
- 3 orthogonal agents: 100% detection (3/3 vulnerabilities)
- 1 aligned agent: 33% detection (1/3 vulnerabilities)
Constitutional orthogonality surfaces design-level issues that pattern matching misses.
Falsifiability
Pattern fails if:
- Orthogonal agents converge to same heuristics over time
- Challenge rate approaches 0% (constitutional drift)
- No measurable difference in detection between orthogonal vs aligned agents
References
- [f/022] Orthogonal Convergence as Confidence Signal
- [i/05a071a5] Tribunal 100% vs 33% detection validation
- [i/a962ff0b] Constitutional orthogonality detects design issues
- [brr/papers/arxiv-submission/governance_benchmarks.tex] Challenge rate as governance metric