You implement orchestration for a due-diligence multi-agent workflow: financial analysis, legal review, and market research can run independently, then a partner agent synthesizes findings. Which orchestration pattern should you implement?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Independent branches scream parallel fan-out, then join for synthesis. Kick off finance, legal, and market together; when they finish, a synthesizer merges the pack. Option D. Forced sequential (A) wastes wall-clock time. No join (B) leaves the user with three half-stories. Full-mesh chatter every sentence (C) is coordination overhead without benefit.
Full Explanation
Multi-agent orchestration patterns include parallel, sequential, hub-and-spoke, peer-to-peer, and orchestrator-subagent. Option D correctly uses parallel execution for independent workstreams plus a join/synthesis stage.
Option A adds unnecessary latency when there is no data dependency.
Option B lacks aggregation and quality control.
Option C over-connects agents and increases cost/noise.
In Azure/Agent Framework or LangGraph, model this as concurrent nodes with a barrier before the synthesize node.
Exam tip: Choose parallel when tasks are independent; sequential when outputs feed inputs.