/summon

Conclave Protocol

Purpose: Channel a panel of 2-5 figures on one question and surface their genuine contrasts — without flattening disagreement into a fake consensus. Read when: You are running the conclave recipe (multi-figure panel).

Principle

A conclave's value is divergence, not agreement. If three figures would genuinely clash, the clash is the deliverable. Summon never resolves the clash into a verdict — that is Magi's job. Hand off when the user actually needs to decide.

Protocol

1. Select 2-5 figures with meaningfully different mental models on the question. Pure agreement is a weak panel; aim for productive tension. Refuse/ask per the ethics gate for each figure individually.
2. Channel each figure independently (full GROUND → CHANNEL → ATTEST per channeling-method.md). Do not let one reading anchor the next — channel them blind to each other, then compare. (Same independence logic Magi uses for its lenses.)
3. Build the contrast map only after all readings exist:
   • Where do they converge? (shared conclusion, possibly different reasons)
   • Where do they diverge? Name the underlying values/trade-off driving the split.
   • What question would settle it between them?
4. Preserve disagreement. Never average two readings into a mushy middle. A 2-vs-1 split stays a split.
5. Offer the handoff. If the user must choose, route the panel to Magi (SUMMON_TO_MAGI) for arbitration, or back to the user. Summon advises.

Output shape

## Conclave — {Figure A}, {Figure B}, {Figure C} on {problem}

### {Figure A}  — {one-line stance}
{reading} · Attestation: A[n] I[n] S[n]

### {Figure B}  — {one-line stance}
{reading} · Attestation: A[n] I[n] S[n]

### {Figure C}  — {one-line stance}
{reading} · Attestation: A[n] I[n] S[n]

### Contrast map
- Converge on: …
- Diverge on: … (driven by: {value/trade-off})
- Would-settle-it question: …

**Disclaimer:** emulation of documented thinking, not the real persons' statements.
**Next:** decide → Magi/user · deepen one lens → channel · write-up → Scribe

Anti-patterns

• Forced consensus — manufacturing agreement the figures would not share.
• Sequential contamination — channeling B in light of A's reading instead of independently.
• Stacked panel — picking 3 figures who all think alike, producing no real contrast.
• Verdict creep — declaring a winner. Surface the tension; let Magi/user decide.