PRODUCTION SCENARIO
A coordinator delegates a supplier-risk review to three specialists that share no conversation state, so their findings meet only in the coordinator's context. A fourth agent then writes the regulatory filing, in a fresh context it cannot fill by re-reading the specialists' transcripts, and every factual statement in that filing has to name the source it came from and be distinguishable from a specialist's recommendation.
What should the coordinator pass to the final writer?
Answering here is anonymous. Nothing is saved unless you sign in.
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A claim-to-source table whose rows are marked verified or proposed, and by whom
Subagents do not inherit context, so whatever the writer needs has to be passed explicitly, and a row-level verified-or-proposed mark with the specialist named is what lets a filing separate an established fact from a recommendation and cite it. A merged narrative is the right deliverable when the consumer wants one decision-ready view and the disagreements have already been adjudicated by someone with standing. The three reports in full are right when the writer is doing the synthesis and needs the raw material; they arrive without attribution structure and push the reconciliation downstream. A confidence score suits a consumer who needs prioritizing, and it compresses provenance into a number, so a sourced fact and a plausible guess can carry the same value.
Official Source: https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/multi-agent-research-system ↗