Consensus is Strategically Insufficient: Reasoning-Trace Disagreement as a Knowledge-Representation Signal

Multi-agent systems (MAS) can substantially extend the reasoning capacity of large language models (LLMs). Most MAS frameworks aggregate agent outputs via simple majority voting, discarding the evidential structure of reasoning traces. Majority voting is brittle under confabulation consensus, where agents share correlated biases and converge on the same incorrect rationale. We introduce AgentAuditor, which moves beyond frequency-based aggregation by organizing agent traces into a Reasoning Tree that explicitly represents agreements and divergences in their reasoning. AgentAuditor resolves conflicts by comparing branch-level evidence at critical divergence points, turning global adjudication into efficient, localized verification. We further propose Anti-Consensus Preference Optimization (ACPO), which trains the adjudicator with evidence-verified preference supervision to reduce conformity to misleading majority cues. Across four MAS frameworks and multiple reasoning benchmarks, AgentAuditor consistently improves aggregation performance over majority voting, with gains of up to 5% absolute accuracy while remaining token-efficient.

When multiple LLM agents solve the same problem, standard practice compresses each agent's reasoning into a majority vote or layered synthesis, treating agreement as the finish line. We show this is unnecessarily lossy: an LLM aggregator that reads complete reasoning traces recovers correct solutions even when agents unanimously agree, with beneficial corrections consistently outweighing harmful ones -- the \emph{aggregation paradox}. Majority voting has a ceiling that perturbation diversity does not raise (error correlations are identical); the aggregator's gain comes from trace-level complementarity, assembling correct intermediate steps from minority chains that voting discards. These findings motivate Self-Consistent Mixture of Agents which generates trace diversity through semantic-preserving input perturbations, safeguards the majority via anchored refinement with provable non-degradation guarantees, and always synthesizes -- never gates on consensus. A single model with perturbation-induced trace variation outperforms heterogeneous model pools across structured reasoning, PhD-level science, competition mathematics, and competitive programming. The unit of aggregation should be the reasoning trace, not the answer.

Multi-agent LLM systems for medical question answering often treat consensus as a reliability signal: if multiple agents agree on an answer, it is presumed trustworthy. However, answer-level consensus does not entail reasoning-level alignment. We introduce CARA (Cross-Agent Reasoning Alignment), a family of automated metrics that measure whether agents who agree on an answer also agree on the reasoning. Applying CARA to a standard debate system on two medical QA benchmarks, MedQA-USMLE and MedThink-Bench, we identify the consistency illusion: a failure mode where debate reduces detectable contradictions between agents while simultaneously decreasing the semantic similarity of their reasoning chains; agents appear to agree more but reason less consistently. To improve this misalignment, we propose the Grounded Debate Protocol (GDP), a prompt-level intervention that requires agents to commit to named medical facts and take explicit stances on other agents' claims. GDP produces large, consistent alignment improvements, with Cohen's d ranging from +1.43 to +1.99, across two datasets and two backbone models, without adding LLM calls or modifying system architecture. Our results motivate cross-agent reasoning alignment as a quantity to audit alongside accuracy in safety-critical domains.