parallel-review-disposition-schemalisted

# Parallel Review / Disposition Schema ## Problem Five reviewers send back five good analyses that don't add up to one decision. That is the default outcome when you dispatch isolated agents to review the same set of findings: isolation is what keeps them from groupthinking each other, but it also means each one answers in its own free-form prose, two of them use the same word for different concepts, and you spend the synthesis pass reconciling formats instead of substance. The fix is upstream, in the dispatch: isolated outputs are synthesizable only if you pre-impose a shared output schema + a fixed decision vocabulary. You can't recover comparability after the fact. ## Context / Trigger Conditions - Dispatching 3+ parallel agents (subagents / council seats / a swarm) to ADJUDICATE a set of already-verified findings — i.e. the decision is "what to DO with each finding," not "are the findings real." - For the upstream "are the findings real" stage — adversarial VERIFY seats on freshly-found findings — use [ADVERSARIAL-VERIFY-SEAT.md](ADVERSARIAL-VERIFY-SEAT.md) (refute posture, burden default, verbatim evidence; same joinability principle). - Security-audit disposition (file a new ID / fold as sub-item / change severity / defer / WI), design or spec review triage, threat-model coverage passes, any "route this finding-set" fire. - Symptom you're trying to avoid: a previous multi-agent fire returned good individual analyses that you the