An orchestrator agent delegates a data processing module to two subagents. Subagent 1 implements the module using async/await with Promises, while Subagent 2 implements the same module using callback patterns. When the orchestrator receives both outputs, they are architecturally contradictory and cannot both be merged. What is the correct resolution strategy for the orchestrator?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
When two subagents hand back contradictory architecture, you apply the pre-defined rule. Prefer async/await, pick that implementation, discard the callback one, and log the decision. Mixing both patterns in one module is worse than either choice alone.
Full Explanation
Contradictory outputs from parallel subagents are an expected condition in multi-agent systems, particularly when agents are given implementation latitude on tasks that have multiple valid approaches. The orchestrator must have resolution strategies defined in advance for these cases.
The correct resolution strategy is to apply a pre-defined architectural decision rule. Well-architected multi-agent systems document preferred patterns, such as a project standard that uses async/await exclusively and treats callbacks as legacy patterns not used in new code, so the orchestrator can resolve contradictions autonomously using these rules rather than escalating every conflict to a human.
The resolution steps are: 1. Identify the conflict type as an architectural pattern contradiction. 2. Apply the relevant decision rule, namely the project standard favoring async/await. 3. Select the async/await implementation as conformant. 4. Discard the callback implementation. 5. Document the decision in the coordination artifact for audit purposes.
Why the other approaches fail: - Merging both implementations by keeping async/await for some functions and callbacks for others creates a mixed-pattern module that is worse than either implementation individually. Mixing async/await and callbacks in the same module creates maintenance complexity, potential callback hell, and inconsistent error handling patterns. Mixed implementations should be rejected outright. - Escalating to a human reviewer to choose between the two implementations is appropriate for decisions outside the scope of defined rules, but for a question with a clear pre-defined standard, automatic escalation defeats the purpose of orchestration. If every contradiction requires human input, the orchestrator adds overhead without value. - Re-running both subagents with a higher temperature setting and taking the output that appears most recently treats a deterministic architectural decision as a random sampling problem. Temperature affects creativity variance in language models; it does not resolve architectural contradictions and would produce equally contradictory outputs on re-run.
Pre-defined resolution rules are what allow orchestrators to handle contradiction autonomously and at scale.