> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://mintlify.com/thiagofinch/mega-brain/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
# Using Conclave
> 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.
## What is Conclave?
Conclave brings together multiple AI agents to deliberate on strategic decisions:
Invokes core principles (Empiricism, Pareto, Inversion, Antifragility)
C-Level agents (CRO, CFO, CMO, COO) present positions
Evaluates quality of reasoning and evidence
Identifies fragile premises and risks
Integrates perspectives into actionable recommendation
Conclave runs ONCE per query - no loops. If confidence \< 60%, it escalates to human decision.
## Basic Conclave Session
### Invoking Conclave
```bash theme={null}
/conclave "Should I change closer commission from 10% to 15%?"
```
```
═══════════════════════════════════════════════
CONCLAVE SESSION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════
QUERY: "Should I change closer commission
from 10% to 15%?"
DATE: 2026-03-06
VALUE 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% annually
INCREASING 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 training
3. 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 framework
CONFIDENCE: 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 framework
CONFIDENCE: 0.85"
═══════════════════════════════════════════════
PHASE 2: METHODOLOGICAL CRITIC
═══════════════════════════════════════════════
QUALITY SCORE: 74/100
Breakdown:
• 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-related
3. OPPORTUNITY COST: Neither addressed what else
$180K could buy (training? better leads?)
RECOMMENDATION: REVISE
Needs: 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. People
say "money" when real reason is management, culture,
or lack of growth.
RISK NOT DISCUSSED:
Entitlement Spiral
12 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 in
SCENARIO 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 optimization
These 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: $5K
PHASE 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-based
PHASE 3 (90 days): Training investment
• Script optimization workshop
• Objection handling bootcamp
• Cost: $25K
TOTAL FIRST-YEAR COST: ~$80K (vs. $180K blanket raise)
EXPECTED ROI: If close rate ↑ to 65%, generates $360K
MODIFICATIONS 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 includes
built-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 validation
NEXT STEPS:
1. Approve Phase 1 diagnostic - Finance: CFO - By: Mar 20
2. Design tier structure draft - Sales: CRO - By: Mar 27
3. RFP for training vendor - Ops: COO - By: Apr 3
REVERSION CRITERIA:
IF after 90 days turnover ≥ 40% THEN escalate to CEO
IF tier system causes team conflict THEN simplify
═══════════════════════════════════════════════
```
```
═══════════════════════════════════════════════
[CONCLAVE: DECISION INCONCLUSIVE]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════
⚠️ CONFIDENCE: 48% - BELOW THRESHOLD
TYPE OF UNCERTAINTY:
[✓] Data insufficient
[ ] Irresolvable conflict
[ ] Outside knowledge scope
OPTIONS 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 unclear
WHAT'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.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════
```
## Constitutional Principles
Every Conclave session starts by invoking core principles:
### 1. Empiricism ⚖️
**Principle:** Decisions based on DATA, not opinions or intuitions.
**Enforcement:**
* Agents must cite specific numbers
* Sources must be traceable (chunk\_ids)
* Anecdotes must be labeled as such
**Violation example:**
```
❌ "I think customers prefer higher prices"
✓ "In 3 surveys (n=240), 67% preferred premium tier [chunk_AH002_034]"
```
### 2. Pareto (80/20) 📊
**Principle:** Focus on the 20% of actions that generate 80% of results.
**Enforcement:**
* Agents must identify highest-leverage option
* Compare ROI across alternatives
* Avoid "do everything" solutions
**Violation example:**
```
❌ "We should improve marketing, sales, ops, and product"
✓ "Focus on sales (60% of impact) before marketing [CG001_045]"
```
### 3. Inversion 🔄
**Principle:** Ask "What would make this FAIL?" before deciding.
**Enforcement:**
* Devil's Advocate MUST list failure modes
* Each agent names 1 risk
* Synthesizer addresses top 3 risks
**Example:**
```
"What could make the tiered commission system fail?
• Closers game the system
• Adds reporting complexity
• Creates internal competition/resentment"
```
### 4. Antifragility 💪
**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 performance
Option B: Performance tiers
Antifragile: Rewards high performance, costs scale with results
Winner: Option B (benefits from variation in performance)
```
## Understanding the Agents
### C-Level Executives
Bring functional perspectives:
**CRO (Chief Revenue Officer)**
* Focus: Growth, sales performance, revenue
* Bias: Toward actions that increase deals
* Sources: Sales frameworks, closing techniques
**CFO (Chief Financial Officer)**
* Focus: Unit economics, profitability, risk
* Bias: Toward conservative financial decisions
* Sources: Financial frameworks, metrics
**CMO (Chief Marketing Officer)**
* Focus: Positioning, demand generation
* Bias: Toward brand and marketing investment
* Sources: Marketing strategies, funnels
**COO (Chief Operations Officer)** - Focus: Scalability, efficiency, execution; Bias: Toward operational improvements; Sources: Process frameworks, systems
### Methodological Critic
**Role:** Evaluate QUALITY of reasoning, not merit of decision.
**Scores (0-100):**
* Premises declared (0-20)
* Evidence traceable (0-20)
* Logic consistent (0-20)
* Alternative scenarios (0-20)
* Conflicts resolved (0-20)
**Does NOT:**
* Take a position
* Recommend an option
* Inject new data
### Devil's Advocate
**Role:** Identify fragile premises and hidden risks.
**Delivers:**
* Most fragile premise (with reasoning)
* Main undiscussed risk
* Alternative scenario that was ignored
* Reversal criteria (when to reconsider)
## Next Steps
Learn how to interact with individual agents
Save and resume Conclave sessions