Run multi-agent deliberation sessions with evidence-based debate and structured decision-making
Conclave is Mega Brain’s multi-agent deliberation system where experts debate strategic decisions with evidence-based reasoning. This guide shows you how to run Conclave sessions and interpret results.
/conclave "Should I change closer commission from 10% to 15%?"
High Confidence (>60%)
Low Confidence (<60%)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════ CONCLAVE SESSION═══════════════════════════════════════════════QUERY: "Should I change closer commission from 10% to 15%?"DATE: 2026-03-06VALUE AT RISK: ~$180K/year═══════════════════════════════════════════════PHASE 0: CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION═══════════════════════════════════════════════┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐│ 📜 CONSTITUTION INVOKED │├──────────────────────────────────────────────┤│ ││ ⚖️ EMPIRICISM ││ Decisions based on DATA, not intuition ││ → This deliberation must cite numbers ││ ││ 📊 PARETO (80/20) ││ Focus on highest leverage actions ││ → Which option has most ROI? ││ ││ 🔄 INVERSION ││ Ask what would make this FAIL ││ → Agents must name failure modes ││ ││ 💪 ANTIFRAGILITY ││ Prefer options that benefit from chaos ││ → Which option gets stronger under stress?││ │└──────────────────────────────────────────────┘═══════════════════════════════════════════════PHASE 1: ROLE AGENT DEBATE═══════════════════════════════════════════════┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓┃ CRO (Chief Revenue Officer) ┃┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛"I support the increase, BUT with conditions.CURRENT DATA:• Close rate: 58% (below Cole Gordon's 60% benchmark)• Avg deal size: $12K• Current comp: $1,200/deal (10%)• Turnover: 40% annuallyINCREASING TO 15% ($1,800/deal) ONLY MAKES SENSE IF:1. We're losing top performers to competitors [Evidence: Exit interviews show 2 left for higher comp]2. Increased retention > cost increase Math: If we retain 2 closers, save $60K in training3. We tie it to performance threshold Proposal: 15% only if close rate >= 60%RISK: We throw money at symptom (turnover) not cause (poor script/training)Sources: [CG001_045] Cole Gordon close rate benchmark [AH002_023] Unit economics frameworkCONFIDENCE: 0.72"┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓┃ CFO (Chief Financial Officer) ┃ ┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛"The math says NO, unless structure changes.UNIT ECONOMICS:Current: $12K deal × 58% close = $6,960 per opp Commission: $1,200 (17.2% of expected value)Proposed: $12K × 58% = $6,960 per opp Commission: $1,800 (25.8% of expected value)IMPACT: +$600/deal = $180K annually (30 deals/closer/year)BREAK-EVEN: We'd need EITHER: • Close rate to increase to 87% (unrealistic) • Deal size to increase to $18K • Volume to increase 50%NONE of these are likely just from raising comp.ALTERNATIVE:Test performance-based tiers: • Base: 10% (<60% close rate) • Tier 1: 12% (60-70% close rate) • Tier 2: 15% (>70% close rate)This creates upside without guaranteed cost increase.Sources: [AH001_023] LTV:CAC frameworkCONFIDENCE: 0.85"═══════════════════════════════════════════════PHASE 2: METHODOLOGICAL CRITIC═══════════════════════════════════════════════QUALITY SCORE: 74/100Breakdown:• Premises declared: 18/20 (both stated assumptions)• Evidence traceable: 16/20 (good chunk_id usage)• Logic consistent: 15/20 (CFO math has gap)• Alternative scenarios: 15/20 (CRO mentioned 1, CFO 1)• Conflicts resolved: 10/20 (tension not addressed)CRITICAL GAPS:1. MISSING DATA: What's industry benchmark for closer compensation?2. CAUSAL ASSUMPTION: Both assume comp → retention but no evidence turnover is comp-related3. OPPORTUNITY COST: Neither addressed what else $180K could buy (training? better leads?)RECOMMENDATION: REVISENeeds: Turnover root cause analysis before deciding═══════════════════════════════════════════════PHASE 3: DEVIL'S ADVOCATE═══════════════════════════════════════════════MOST FRAGILE PREMISE:"Turnover is caused by low compensation"WHY IT'S WEAK:Exit interviews are notoriously unreliable. Peoplesay "money" when real reason is management, culture,or lack of growth.RISK NOT DISCUSSED:Entitlement Spiral12 months from now:"We raised commission to 15% but performance didn't improve. Now closers feel ENTITLED to 15% and any reduction would cause mass exodus. We're trapped."Probability: 60%Impact: $180K/year permanently locked inSCENARIO OF REGRET:You raise to 15%. Close rate stays at 58%. Turnover continues because real problem was weak onboarding.Now you've spent $180K and gotten nothing.ALTERNATIVE IGNORED:Invest $50K in: • Sales training program • Better lead qualification • Script optimizationThese address ROOT CAUSE (skill) not symptom (comp).═══════════════════════════════════════════════PHASE 4: SYNTHESIS═══════════════════════════════════════════════DECISION RECOMMENDED:DO NOT raise commission to 15% across the board.INSTEAD, implement 3-phase approach:PHASE 1 (30 days): Diagnose turnover root cause • Conduct proper exit interviews (3rd party) • Survey current closers on satisfaction • Benchmark comp vs. market • Cost: $5KPHASE 2 (60 days): Performance tier system • <60% close rate: 10% commission • 60-70% close rate: 12% commission • >70% close rate: 15% commission • Cost: Variable, performance-basedPHASE 3 (90 days): Training investment • Script optimization workshop • Objection handling bootcamp • Cost: $25KTOTAL FIRST-YEAR COST: ~$80K (vs. $180K blanket raise)EXPECTED ROI: If close rate ↑ to 65%, generates $360KMODIFICATIONS FROM DEBATE:• Added Phase 1 (Devil's Advocate point)• Changed to tiered structure (CFO suggestion)• Added training component (Critic gap)CONFIDENCE: 78%This is high enough to recommend action, but includesbuilt-in checkpoints to course-correct.RISKS RESIDUAL:• Tier system adds complexity: Mitigate with clear docs• May not solve cultural issues: Monitor in Phase 1• Training may not transfer: Use role-play validationNEXT STEPS:1. Approve Phase 1 diagnostic - Finance: CFO - By: Mar 202. Design tier structure draft - Sales: CRO - By: Mar 27 3. RFP for training vendor - Ops: COO - By: Apr 3REVERSION CRITERIA:IF after 90 days turnover ≥ 40% THEN escalate to CEOIF tier system causes team conflict THEN simplify═══════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════ [CONCLAVE: DECISION INCONCLUSIVE]═══════════════════════════════════════════════⚠️ CONFIDENCE: 48% - BELOW THRESHOLDTYPE OF UNCERTAINTY:[✓] Data insufficient[ ] Irresolvable conflict[ ] Outside knowledge scopeOPTIONS FOR HUMAN DECISION:OPTION A: Increase to 15% universally Trade-off: Higher retention vs. $180K cost Defended by: CRO Evidence: Exit interviews (weak)OPTION B: Tiered commission structure Trade-off: Complexity vs. performance incentive Defended by: CFO Evidence: Unit economics (strong)OPTION C: Investigate root cause first Trade-off: 30-day delay vs. better decision Defended by: Devil's Advocate Evidence: Turnover causation unclearWHAT'S MISSING:• Actual turnover root cause data• Industry compensation benchmarks• Exit interview reliability validation⚠️ This case requires HUMAN DECISION.The Council is NOT recommending any option.RECOMMENDED ACTION:Gather missing data (Option C) before deciding.═══════════════════════════════════════════════
Principle: Prefer options that BENEFIT from volatility and uncertainty.Enforcement:
Identify which option improves under stress
Avoid fragile solutions that require perfect conditions
Build in optionality
Example:
Option A: Fixed 15% commission Fragile: Locks in cost regardless of performanceOption B: Performance tiers Antifragile: Rewards high performance, costs scale with resultsWinner: Option B (benefits from variation in performance)
