What Is the Problem Restate Gate in the Council of High Intelligence Protocol?

The Problem Restate Gate is a mandatory checkpoint (STEP 1.5) that requires each council member to reframe the deliberation topic in two distinct ways before analysis begins, ensuring alignment and preventing wasted computation on misinterpreted questions.

The Council of High Intelligence is an open-source deliberation protocol designed to enhance decision-making through structured multi-agent analysis. At the heart of this system lies the problem restate gate, a critical safeguard implemented in SKILL.md that runs before any substantive evaluation occurs. This gate ensures that every participant interprets the problem through multiple lenses before committing computational resources to detailed analysis.

What Is the Problem Restate Gate?

The problem restate gate is a dedicated validation step (STEP 1.5) in the council process where each member must verbally reframe the problem before proceeding. According to the source code in SKILL.md (lines 209-227), the gate explicitly instructs participants to "restat[e] the problem in TWO parts" and mandates that they "Do NOT begin your analysis yet" until the checkpoint is cleared.

Definition and Implementation in SKILL.md

In the repository's SKILL.md file, the gate is defined as a hard stop between problem introduction and analytical rounds. The protocol requires each council member to produce two concise sentences: one reflecting their own analytical lens and another offering an alternative framing. This requirement is enforced at lines 209-227, where the system validates that participants have completed the restatement before unlocking the next phase.

How the Problem Restate Gate Works

The gate operates through a structured two-part submission followed by coordinator validation.

The Two-Part Restatement Requirement

Each council member must produce exactly two components:

• Personal restatement: One sentence capturing the core question through the member's specific analytical lens (e.g., council-aristotle, council-ada, or council-feynman).
• Alternative framing: One sentence reframing the problem to expose angles the original statement may have missed.

The total response must not exceed 50 words, forcing concision and clarity.

The Coordinator Checkpoint

Following submission, the coordinator reviews all restatements at lines 27-28 in SKILL.md. If any member's interpretation diverges significantly from the original problem, the coordinator flags the discrepancy and prompts the user to clarify the question. This checkpoint prevents the council from proceeding with mismatched understandings.

Why the Problem Restate Gate Matters

The gate serves four critical functions in the deliberation process:

Early Detection of Mis-Framed Questions – By forcing each member to interpret the problem through their own lens, the gate exposes ambiguous or misleading wording before any analysis round begins. This prevents the council from answering the "wrong question."

Improved Alignment – Sharing restatements (including alternative framings) allows each member to see how peers perceive the issue, reducing divergent interpretations later in the deliberation. The README.md (line 75) highlights this as a key safeguard against alignment failures.

Resource Efficiency – Identifying a wrong question early prevents wasted computation on irrelevant analysis. As noted in CHANGELOG.md (line 41), this gate was added specifically to save time and model usage by validating problem understanding before the three-round deliberation protocol begins.

Bias Mitigation – The explicit reframing step encourages diverse perspectives and surfaces hidden assumptions. By requiring an alternative framing, the gate disrupts confirmation bias and ensures multiple viewpoints enter the discussion.

Execution Modes and Code Examples

The protocol implements the restate gate differently depending on the execution mode.

Full Mode Implementation

In full mode, the gate is automatically invoked as a distinct step. When running:

# Full-mode example – the restate gate is automatically invoked

/council --triad architecture "Should we adopt a monorepo?"

The coordinator spawns each member with a specific prompt:

Read your agent definition at ~/.claude/agents/council-{name}.md.

The problem under deliberation:
Should we adopt a monorepo?

Before you begin analysis, restate this problem in TWO parts:
1. Your restatement – one sentence capturing the core question through your lens.
2. Alternative framing – one sentence reframing the problem in a way the original statement may have missed.

Do NOT begin your analysis yet. Just the restatement and alternative framing. 50 words maximum total.

The resulting restatements are collected, displayed to the user, and used as a checkpoint before proceeding to Round 1.

Quick Mode Integration

In quick mode, the gate is embedded directly in the rapid analysis prompt (STEP 0.5) so the same restatement step occurs without a separate round. According to SKILL.md lines 541-543, the protocol compresses the checkpoint into the initial prompt while maintaining the dual-restatement requirement.

Summary

• The problem restate gate (STEP 1.5) is a mandatory checkpoint defined in SKILL.md (lines 209-227) that runs before substantive analysis.
• Each council member must provide two restatements: one personal interpretation and one alternative framing, limited to 50 words.
• The coordinator validates these restatements at lines 27-28, flagging divergences before proceeding to Round 1.
• The gate prevents wasted computation, ensures alignment, and mitigates bias by exposing multiple problem framings early.
• Both full mode and quick mode (STEP 0.5, lines 541-543) implement this safeguard, though quick mode embeds it within the initial prompt.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens if council members disagree on the problem restatement?

If the coordinator detects significant divergence in the restatements at the checkpoint (lines 27-28), it flags the discrepancy and prompts the user to clarify the original question. This prevents the council from proceeding with conflicting interpretations that would compromise the deliberation quality.

Is the problem restate gate optional in quick mode?

No, the gate is not optional, though it is integrated differently. In quick mode (STEP 0.5), the restatement requirement is embedded directly into the rapid analysis prompt rather than executed as a separate round, as documented in SKILL.md lines 541-543.

How does the gate prevent wasted computation?

By identifying mis-framed or ambiguous questions before the three-round deliberation protocol begins, the gate stops the council from expending model resources on irrelevant analysis. The CHANGELOG.md (line 41) specifically cites this resource efficiency as the primary motivation for adding the gate to the protocol.

Where is the problem restate gate documented in the source code?

The gate is primarily defined in SKILL.md (lines 209-227) with checkpoint logic at lines 27-28. It is referenced as a safety measure in README.md (line 75) and tracked as a major feature addition in CHANGELOG.md (line 41).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "instagit": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "instagit@latest"]
    }
  }
}