Architectural Design, Not Only Model Intelligence, Governs Multi-Agent LLM Performance

LLM-based multi-agent systems have the potential to enable collective intelligence and scale toward solving highly complex tasks through coordinated ensembles of specialized agents. However, despite their theoretical potential, the architectural design space remains largely non-systematized and lacks broadly established design principles. Furthermore, the scalability characteristics of such systems are only partially understood so far. This paper makes two contributions. We first distill four design principles for scalable MAS architectures from a structured analysis of prior work: simplicity, elastic feedback, sequential workflows with optional loops, and summary-based communication. We operationalize these principles in a reference architecture whose topology is formalized as a constrained directed workflow graph, and we evaluate four configurations of increasing complexity on a standardized benchmark of terminal-based system engineering tasks using two LLMs of differing capability. Our findings show that scaling yields measurable accuracy improvements with approximately linear cost growth, but only when the underlying LLM exceeds a minimum capability threshold. Performance peaks at intermediate complexity, then degrades due to timeouts and evaluation limitations. In addition, persistent consistency issues emerge as a central challenge across all scaling levels. These results provide concrete design guidance for practitioners and highlight consistency and evaluation standardization as key targets for future research.

We present a controlled experiment evaluating 12 multi-agent LLM collaboration topologies for software architecture design. Using a $2\times2\times2$ factorial design (Authority $\times$ Roles $\times$ Dynamics), we conducted 520 experimental runs across 8 design tasks of varying complexity, with 5 repetitions each. Designs were evaluated on a 12-dimensional rubric by three independent automated evaluators (GPT-OSS 120B, Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Sonnet 4.6). We report four core findings. First, structural adversarial (v4b) ranks #1 by ensemble -- a prompt-engineered adversarial variant that demands rewrite mandates rather than patches (weighted ensemble: 4.637/5.0). Second, cross-model review wins unanimously at #2 -- generate with one model, review with another -- ranking #2 by all three evaluators (weighted ensemble: 4.606). Third, evaluator diversity is itself a finding -- all three evaluators agree v4b is best and v3 is worst, but disagree sharply on v2b (Claude d=1.44 vs. GPT-OSS d=0.45), revealing how different model families weight design qualities. Fourth, parallel merge is fundamentally broken -- all three evaluators place merge variants in the bottom tier (3.65-3.79), due to token starvation and the Frankenstein effect. The weighted ensemble ($2\times$Opus + $2\times$Sonnet + $1\times$GPT-OSS) provides robust rankings across 520 runs, confirmed through independent cross-validation.

Multi-agent LLM systems fail in production at rates between 41% and 87%, mostly due to coordination defects rather than base-model capability. Existing responses split between cataloguing failure modes empirically and shipping declarative orchestration frameworks as engineering tools; neither delivers a principled mapping from coordination configuration to predictable failure-mode signature. We argue that coordination should be treated as a configurable architectural layer, separable from agent logic and from information access, enabling architectural reasoning rather than only engineering productivity. We instantiate this with an information-controlled design on prediction markets: a single LLM, fixed tools, fixed per-call output cap, and fixed prompt template across five reference coordination configurations, with total compute per question treated as an endogenous architectural output. The Murphy decomposition of the Brier score separates calibration from discriminative power, so configurations leave distinguishable signatures even when aggregate scores coincide. On 100 Polymarket binary markets resolved after the model's training cutoff (claude-opus-4-6) we report Murphy signatures, a cost-quality Pareto frontier, category-conditioned analysis, and a bootstrap power-projection. Three of five pre-specified predictions are upheld in direction; two configurations dominate the Pareto frontier within this regime; exploratory bootstrap intervals separate consensus alignment from others, though pairwise tests do not survive Bonferroni correction at n=100. We also deploy the same configurations as live agents on Foresight Arena under web-search-enabled conditions, as an on-chain replication channel accumulating in parallel. Harness, trace dataset, and production agents are released. We position this as a methodology-validating first instantiation, not a general cross-model claim.