Building an evidence-first multi-agent system: 720 paired missions, rollback, and strict claim boundaries

pawel jankes — Sun, 20 Sep 2026 15:21:54 +0000

I am an independent R&D developer building SSI V5, an experimental multi-agent architecture focused on evidence, provenance, consolidation, and rollback.

The implementation itself is proprietary. The public GitHub repository is an evidence and review mirror: it contains sanitized reports, run summaries, test artifacts, and reviewer guidance rather than the private source code.

Repository: https://github.com/jankes72/SSI_V5

Why I built it

A multi-agent system can produce impressive-looking output while still making it difficult to answer basic engineering questions:

Which component made a decision?
What evidence supported it?
Did a transferred skill actually improve the result?
Can the system return to a known-good state?
Are reported timings physical response times or only software-flow measurements?

SSI V5 is my attempt to make those questions part of the architecture instead of adding them after the experiment.

Architecture in brief

The project separates two main cores:

BODY_FROZEN — an execution-oriented core with its own runtime, memory, and lifecycle.
DIRECTOR — a separate orchestration and resource-management core, also with its own runtime, memory, and lifecycle.

They are not copies of each other. Validated knowledge can move through cross-consolidation, but their identities and responsibilities remain separate.

The laboratory also uses six experimental agents called ISKRA1–6. The system records consultations, consolidation decisions, provenance, and rollback events. Candidate capabilities are evaluated through a Champion/Challenger process before promotion.

Current public evidence

The public evidence mirror currently records:

S1–S10 training sequence: COMPLETE / PASS
Seven BODY runtimes discovered: 7/7 PASS
Promoted BODY_FROZEN reload verification: 144/144
Post-S10 drone scenarios: 6/6
Post-S10 humanoid scenarios: 15/15
Drone Mother paired families: 12/12
Rescue Robot Mother paired families: 12/12

The dual-mother cross-domain laboratory executed:

60 deterministic repetitions per paired family
720 paired missions
1,440 domain result rows
720 cross-consultations
360 consolidations
360 rollbacks

Reported mean software-flow timings were:

consultation: 2.4896 ms
consolidation: 0.0369 ms
rollback: 0.1170 ms
total software flow: 5.2559 ms

These measurements describe the software laboratory only. They are not physical robot or drone response times.

What I am not claiming

Clear boundaries matter more than impressive wording. This project does not currently claim:

physical-world validation,
safety certification,
production readiness,
independent replication,
universal superiority over other architectures,
AGI, consciousness, or sentience.

The repository is intended to make the evidence reviewable without exposing the proprietary implementation.

What I want to test next

I am looking for universities, robotics teams, AI researchers, and R&D companies willing to define an external validation problem.

A useful pilot would work like this:

The partner supplies a previously unseen problem or scenario.
We freeze the acceptance criteria in advance: PASS, FAIL, or INCONCLUSIVE.
SSI V5 runs the experiment with evidence and provenance enabled.
Failures remain visible instead of being removed from the report.
The partner receives the results, limitations, timings, and rollback/consolidation history.
Nothing is published without the partner's approval.

The strongest next step is not another internal claim. It is an externally defined test with frozen criteria.

If you work in multi-agent systems, robotics, autonomous systems, AI assurance, or research validation, I would value a technical review of the evidence mirror or a proposal for a hard external test.

I am especially interested in:

paid R&D pilots and proof-of-concept projects,
research partnerships,
grant consortia in Poland or Europe,
independent replication or red-team review.

Feedback is welcome, especially criticism of the experimental design or claim boundaries.