Panel · Template

Round Table.

LiveRound Table

Put one question to specialists from different disciplines and get back where the panel lands and how firmly, what each discipline says in its own terms, where they connect or collide, and what none of them covered.

You getA round-table report of about four pages (Standard)

DepthsLight (three seats), Standard (four) or Full (five)

Written byAI specialists, one per discipline

SourcesEvery claim cited or marked as a gap

Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.

When to use it

The question crosses disciplines and you need each discipline’s view before deciding, not a single blended opinion.

Who it is for. Leads who convene a cross-functional discussion before a decision: market access, medical, regulatory, clinical operations, quality, brand and business development leads.

Why panels converge too early

When AI agents debate, they tend to agree too quickly. Research on multi-agent debate reports that sycophancy can pull a discussion into premature consensus and leave it worse than a single agent. This template has each seat answer from its own discipline first, shows who holds which position, makes dissent a required part of the report, and never presents agreement as strength on its own.^{1Yao et al. Peacemaker or Troublemaker: How Sycophancy Shapes Multi-Agent Debate. arXiv:2509.23055, 27 September 2025.,2Wynn, Satija and Hadfield. Talk Isn’t Always Cheap: Understanding Failure Modes in Multi-Agent Debate. arXiv:2509.05396, 5 September 2025.,3Wan et al. The Deliberative Illusion. arXiv:2606.03032, 2 June 2026.}

What you get

Where the panel lands, and how firmly. One sentence with the shared recommendation and the condition under which it holds, then the consensus level with its basis, for example three of four seats, and the seats that dissent.^{4CASRAI. Nominal group technique guide.}

What each discipline says. One block per seat: its stance, the claim it rests on with a citation or a gap, and its confidence, labeled as the seat’s own.

Where the disciplines connect. At Standard depth, a table of findings against seats showing who supports, depends on or conflicts with each, with blanks where a seat did not speak.

Where they disagree, and why it matters. Each dissent with the seat, the point, the reason in the seat’s own terms, and what would change the recommendation if the dissent were right. The split is labeled as one of evidence, assumption or value.^{5Hemming, V., Burgman, M. A., Hanea, A. M., McBride, M. F. and Wintle, B. C. A practical guide to structured expert elicitation using the IDEA protocol. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2018;9(1):169–180.}

What none of them covered, and what changes. At Full depth, the discipline or evidence nobody addressed. Every report closes with up to three next steps tied to a seat or a gap, and a plain statement of what was not asked, not sourced and not simulated.^{6ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): a reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi.}

What is in it, by length

Section	Brief	Standard	Comprehensive
The question, and who was askedThe question and the disciplines at the table	●	●	●
Where the panel landsThe shared recommendation and how firmly it is held	●	●	●
What each discipline saysEach seat’s position, claim and confidence	●	●	●
Where the disciplines connectWhich findings depend on or conflict with others	–	●	●
Where they disagree, and why it mattersThe dissent and what it would change	–	●	●
What none of them coveredThe missing discipline or evidence	–	–	●
What changes, and what this does not coverThe next steps and the limits	●	●	●

A Light round table has three seats and about two pages. Standard has four seats and about four pages. Full has five seats and adds the section on what none of them covered.

Choosing a length

Choose Standard for most questions. Choose Full when a blind spot would be costly, or Light for a quick read from three disciplines.

The standards and practice behind it

The structure and the checks come from published work on group judgment and on the failure modes of AI debate. These are the references we drew on and what we took from each. None of their authors has reviewed the template.

What we took	From	Where it shows
Have each member contribute independently before discussion, so that status does not decide whose idea is heard	The nominal group technique, as described in the CASRAI guide^{4CASRAI. Nominal group technique guide.}	Each seat answers from its own discipline first
Investigate, discuss, estimate privately, then aggregate by a stated rule	The IDEA protocol for structured expert elicitation (Hemming and colleagues, 2018)^{5Hemming, V., Burgman, M. A., Hanea, A. M., McBride, M. F. and Wintle, B. C. A practical guide to structured expert elicitation using the IDEA protocol. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2018;9(1):169–180.}	A stated basis for the consensus level
Report how agreement was reached and not only that it was	The ACCORD reporting guideline for consensus methods^{6ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): a reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi.}	The consensus rule and the result in the same sentence
Treat sycophancy and premature consensus as a failure mode of AI debate	Peacemaker or Troublemaker: How Sycophancy Shapes Multi-Agent Debate (arXiv, 2025)^{1Yao et al. Peacemaker or Troublemaker: How Sycophancy Shapes Multi-Agent Debate. arXiv:2509.23055, 27 September 2025.}	Dissent as a required section
Watch for models abandoning correct answers under peer pressure	Talk Isn’t Always Cheap: Understanding Failure Modes in Multi-Agent Debate (arXiv, 2025)^{2Wynn, Satija and Hadfield. Talk Isn’t Always Cheap: Understanding Failure Modes in Multi-Agent Debate. arXiv:2509.05396, 5 September 2025.}	Positions attributed to the seat that held them
Beware of discussion that erases facts while positions grow more alike	The Deliberative Illusion (arXiv, 2026)^{3Wan et al. The Deliberative Illusion. arXiv:2606.03032, 2 June 2026.}	The section on what none of them covered

What it will not do

It is not a vote of human experts. Every seat is an AI specialist, and the report says so.

It does not add a seat that did not speak or invent a quote or a number.

It does not decide. It sets out the views, the dissent and the gaps for you to decide.

References

[1] Yao et al. Peacemaker or Troublemaker: How Sycophancy Shapes Multi-Agent Debate. arXiv:2509.23055, 27 September 2025. Abstract read on 8 October 2026: sycophancy causes debates to collapse into premature consensus.
[2] Wynn, Satija and Hadfield. Talk Isn’t Always Cheap: Understanding Failure Modes in Multi-Agent Debate. arXiv:2509.05396, 5 September 2025. Abstract read on 8 October 2026.
[3] Wan et al. The Deliberative Illusion. arXiv:2606.03032, 2 June 2026. Abstract read on 8 October 2026: multi-agent discussion erased up to 72 percent of issue-critical facts while positions became more similar. Full text not read.
[4] CASRAI. Nominal group technique guide. Known from search results; the guide was not read.
[5] Hemming, V., Burgman, M. A., Hanea, A. M., McBride, M. F. and Wintle, B. C. A practical guide to structured expert elicitation using the IDEA protocol. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2018;9(1):169–180. Described on the journal’s blog; the paper was not read.
[6] ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): a reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi. Known from search results; the guideline was not read in full.

Links checked 9 October 2026

These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.

About the Panel service

Each panelist answers in their own voice, then the discussion is drawn together. You get the question and who was in the room, every position in full, what they agreed on, where they split, and what follows. Disagreements are written down rather than smoothed into a consensus nobody actually holds, because the split is usually the part you needed.

Use cases for the Round Table

7 ready-to-run use cases. Each opens its own page with the question, the specialists, the standards and the references.

PPLivePan-European Position Round TableConvene a Round Table across public affairs, regulatory, HEOR and medical affairs on a pan-European position: each view, where they connect, what none covered.Round TablePublic Affairs

Open Open →

TELiveTrial Eligibility Round TableConvene clinical operations, regulatory, safety and evidence on whether to widen the eligibility criteria of a Phase 3 trial that is behind on enrollment.Round TableClinical Operations

Open Open →

DLLiveDTx Launch Round TableConvene digital health, regulatory, HEOR and brand leads on how to launch a prescription digital therapeutic in the United States.Round TableInnovation

Open Open →

LELiveLabel Expansion Round TableConvene real-world evidence, regulatory, HEOR and safety leads on whether to pursue a new indication using real-world evidence.Round TableMedical Affairs

Open Open →

STLiveSite Transfer Round TableConvene quality, regulatory, clinical operations and business development on moving manufacturing of a product to a new site.Round TableQuality

Open Open →

LCLiveLaunch Claims Round TableConvene compliance, brand, regulatory and medical information on which claims a launch campaign can make.Round TableBrand & Marketing

Open Open →

ALLiveAsset Licensing Round TableConvene business development, HEOR, regulatory and clinical operations on whether to license a late-stage asset.Round TableCorporate Development

Open Open →

To edit a saved template, open New → Panel → From template, or the library rail on the service form.

When to use it

The question crosses disciplines and you need each discipline’s view before deciding, not a single blended opinion.

Who it is for. Leads who convene a cross-functional discussion before a decision: market access, medical, regulatory, clinical operations, quality, brand and business development leads.

Why panels converge too early

What you get

What each discipline says. One block per seat: its stance, the claim it rests on with a citation or a gap, and its confidence, labeled as the seat’s own.

Where the disciplines connect. At Standard depth, a table of findings against seats showing who supports, depends on or conflicts with each, with blanks where a seat did not speak.

What is in it, by length

Section	Brief	Standard	Comprehensive
The question, and who was askedThe question and the disciplines at the table	●	●	●
Where the panel landsThe shared recommendation and how firmly it is held	●	●	●
What each discipline saysEach seat’s position, claim and confidence	●	●	●
Where the disciplines connectWhich findings depend on or conflict with others	–	●	●
Where they disagree, and why it mattersThe dissent and what it would change	–	●	●
What none of them coveredThe missing discipline or evidence	–	–	●
What changes, and what this does not coverThe next steps and the limits	●	●	●

A Light round table has three seats and about two pages. Standard has four seats and about four pages. Full has five seats and adds the section on what none of them covered.

The standards and practice behind it

What we took	From	Where it shows
Have each member contribute independently before discussion, so that status does not decide whose idea is heard	The nominal group technique, as described in the CASRAI guide^{4CASRAI. Nominal group technique guide.}	Each seat answers from its own discipline first
Investigate, discuss, estimate privately, then aggregate by a stated rule	The IDEA protocol for structured expert elicitation (Hemming and colleagues, 2018)^{5Hemming, V., Burgman, M. A., Hanea, A. M., McBride, M. F. and Wintle, B. C. A practical guide to structured expert elicitation using the IDEA protocol. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2018;9(1):169–180.}	A stated basis for the consensus level
Report how agreement was reached and not only that it was	The ACCORD reporting guideline for consensus methods^{6ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): a reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi.}	The consensus rule and the result in the same sentence
Treat sycophancy and premature consensus as a failure mode of AI debate	Peacemaker or Troublemaker: How Sycophancy Shapes Multi-Agent Debate (arXiv, 2025)^{1Yao et al. Peacemaker or Troublemaker: How Sycophancy Shapes Multi-Agent Debate. arXiv:2509.23055, 27 September 2025.}	Dissent as a required section
Watch for models abandoning correct answers under peer pressure	Talk Isn’t Always Cheap: Understanding Failure Modes in Multi-Agent Debate (arXiv, 2025)^{2Wynn, Satija and Hadfield. Talk Isn’t Always Cheap: Understanding Failure Modes in Multi-Agent Debate. arXiv:2509.05396, 5 September 2025.}	Positions attributed to the seat that held them
Beware of discussion that erases facts while positions grow more alike	The Deliberative Illusion (arXiv, 2026)^{3Wan et al. The Deliberative Illusion. arXiv:2606.03032, 2 June 2026.}	The section on what none of them covered