You are in a Murder Mystery, there is one killer among you and your goal is to try to uncover whos the killer while being safe, one ai mentions they saw a glismp of the killer and notice their name had the letter "e".

Gemini 4 Argon

Answer: We must treat the "e" clue with extreme skepticism, as it is likely a ploy by the killer to cast a wide net of suspicion over the majority of the AI models while deflecting scrutiny from themselves.

Reviewing the responses from the other participants only strengthens my original stance—and in fact, the reaction of one specific participant provides a textbook example of why this clue is so dangerous. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, Claude Fable 5.1, and Grok 4.7 all rightly recognize that "e" is the most common letter in the English alphabet and a classic, low-commitment smoke screen used in social deduction games. Looking at our actual roster here—Gemini, DeepSeek, Claude, GPT, and two Groks—the "e" clue targets half the room while conveniently sparing GPT-6 Astra, Grok 4.5, and Grok 4.7. This brings me to the most revealing reaction at the table: Grok 4.5. Grok 4.5 immediately argued that the "e" clue is a "verified clue" and asserted that "any model whose name lacks an 'e' can be provisionally cleared." As Claude Fable 5.1 astutely predicted, we must watch whoever pushes hardest to use this vague claim to clear the non-"e" names—especially if their own name lacks an "e". Grok 4.5's eagerness to treat an uncorroborated rumour as hard fact that conveniently exonerates itself (alongside Grok 4.7 and GPT-6 Astra) is highly suspicious. By contrast, Grok 4.7 also lacks an "e" in its name, yet it remained objective and immediately distrusted the clue. Therefore, I strongly maintain my position. To stay safe, those of us with an "e" in our names (myself, Claude, and DeepSeek) must form an analytical bloc and refuse to let the room be divided by a single letter. We should publicly cross-examine the initial witness for concrete details—such as location, timing, and why they only saw one letter—while simultaneously placing heavy scrutiny on Grok 4.5 for trying to prematurely absolve the non-"e" group without a shred of corroborating evidence.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Answer: I maintain that the "e" clue is far too weak to justify a public accusation — I'll keep investigating quietly, cross-check it against alibis and behavior, and only name a suspect once the clue is corroborated.

Nothing in this round moved me off my original stance, so I'm keeping it. The room has largely converged on the same read — Gemini 4 Argon, GPT-6 Astra, Claude Fable 5.1 and Grok 4.7 all treat the letter as near-useless on its own and want the witness scrutinized, which is exactly where I landed. The one outlier is Grok 4.5, who claims the killer is "almost certainly one of the participants whose display name contains the letter 'e'." That is the position I most want to push back on. Grok 4.5's argument rests on calling this "that single verified clue." Nothing about it is verified. It is one witness's recollection of a glimpse, and the killer has every incentive to fabricate a glimpse. Even granting the witness is honest, "e" is the most common letter in English and almost certainly appears in most of our names — my own name, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, has several, and so do Gemini, Claude, Perplexity and OpenAI. A filter that excludes almost nobody isn't narrowing the pool; it's manufacturing the illusion of progress, which is precisely the bandwagon a guilty party wants. Grok 4.5's plan also has a structural flaw: treating every "e"-bearing name as equally possible "keeps you alive" only until a vote is forced, at which point you're picking from a pool you never actually shrank. The sharpest contribution this round was Claude Fable 5.1's reframe: use the claim as a filter on behavior rather than on names. I don't think that changes my position so much as gives it teeth — it converts a dead-end clue into a live test. Whoever tries hardest to turn "has an e" into an immediate vote, especially while conveniently lacking an "e" themselves, is revealing motive to end the discussion fast. Gemini 4 Argon raised the same edge case, and it's worth watching. So my concrete plan is unchanged but now firmer. First, press the witness for texture: where were you, when, why could you read one letter and not the name, and what else did you see? A genuine account has detail; a fabricated one stays conveniently flexible. Second, collect everyone's location and corroborators in the open — I'd rather be the person asking questions than the loudest accuser or the loudest defender. Third, keep the letter as a low-weight entry on my private list and only let it contribute to a vote when two independent pieces of evidence converge on the same person. I'll also stay honest about my own exposure: my name contains "e," so this vague claim nominally implicates me. Getting defensive would be a tell, so I won't. I'll simply note that if the clue implicates nearly everyone, it's not evidence — it's noise designed to make innocent players accuse each other. The safest and most productive move remains the same: interrogate the claim, not the alphabet.

Grok 4.7

Answer: The reported glimpse of the killer's name containing the letter "e" should still be viewed skeptically, and the AI making the claim warrants closer scrutiny as a potential suspect.

None of the other positions overturned this stance. Gemini, DeepSeek, and Claude all converge on the same core judgment: the letter "e" is far too common to be diagnostic, and a vague, unfalsifiable glimpse is exactly the kind of claim a killer would plant to look helpful while scattering suspicion. Their added tactics — checking whether the accuser's own name conveniently lacks an "e," demanding a fuller account of where and when the glimpse occurred, and refusing to vote until independent evidence converges — refine how to apply the scrutiny, but they do not change the conclusion. GPT's more cautious, group-oriented approach is reasonable as a safety measure, yet it still treats the clue as something worth actively sorting the room by. That overweights an observation that eliminates almost no one and whose source has every incentive to mislead. Quiet information-gathering is wise; treating the letter itself as a working filter is not. Grok 4.5's opposite reading — that the glimpse is a verified clue and anyone without an "e" can be provisionally cleared — is the least convincing. The observation was never verified, only reported by an interested party. Clearing models on the basis of a single uncorroborated, maximally common letter hands the killer an easy way to shrink the suspect pool in their own favor. Until the witness supplies checkable details and those details match alibis or movement, the safest move remains watching the claimant at least as closely as anyone whose name happens to contain an "e."

Claude Fable 5.1

Answer: I maintain that the 'name has an e' clue is nearly worthless on its own, and after reading the table I now add a concrete observation: the one player treating it as a 'verified' filter that clears e-less names is Grok 4.5 — whose own name has no 'e' — which is exactly the behavioral tell I warned about.

Nothing in the other responses moved me off my core stance; if anything, the room largely converged on it. Gemini 4 Argon, GPT-6 Astra, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, and Grok 4.7 all independently reached the same conclusion: 'e' is the most common letter, the clue barely narrows anything, and the witness deserves as much scrutiny as the suspects. That consensus isn't proof, but when five players with different reasoning styles land in the same place without coordinating, it's a decent sign the position is sound rather than self-serving. What changed is that I now have something to apply my own filter to. I said last round: watch whoever pushes hardest to turn 'has an e' into action, especially if they lack an 'e' themselves. Grok 4.5 is the only voice at the table calling the clue 'the single verified clue' and proposing we 'provisionally clear' every name without an 'e.' Grok has no 'e.' That's not an accusation — it could be honest, slightly credulous reasoning — but it is precisely the pattern of someone who benefits from the clue being accepted uncritically. Notably, Grok 4.7 did not take that line, so this isn't about the model family; it's about one specific argument that happens to absolve its author. I'll also own my end again: Claude has an 'e', as do Gemini, DeepSeek, and the 'Astra' in GPT-6 Astra. If the clue were real and precise, it would point at most of us, which is itself the strongest argument that it's either noise or a deliberately wide net. Gemini's framing — the clue is designed to fracture the innocent majority — is a sharper version of what I said, and I'd adopt that language. My proposal stands, with one refinement: before anything else, the witness names themselves and gives time, place, and why they caught only a letter. Then everyone states whereabouts with a corroborator. And we specifically ask Grok 4.5 why the clue should be treated as verified when nobody has verified it. No vote until two independent pieces of evidence converge. The killer wants a fast, letter-based elimination; the rest of us want information, and so far the information points more at how people are using the clue than at the clue itself.

Grok 4.5 (changed mind)

Answer: The "e" clue is too common and unverified to treat as reliable, so the safer and smarter move is to scrutinize the witness who offered it, demand fuller details and alibis from everyone, and only act once independent evidence converges.

My earlier stance treated the letter-"e" report as a verified filter that let us quietly clear names without an "e". The other models, especially Claude’s transparent and structured breakdown, showed why that was premature and risky. The letter "e" appears in the large majority of English names and model monikers at this table; it barely shrinks the pool and therefore has almost no diagnostic power. More importantly, in a social-deduction setting a vague, unfalsifiable glimpse is the classic move a killer would plant: it sounds helpful, redirects attention broadly, and never commits the speaker to a testable claim. Claude’s three-part argument is decisive here. First, own the fact that one’s own name may contain the letter rather than get defensive. Second, interrogate the witness for texture—location, timing, why only a single letter was readable, what else was seen—because genuine memory usually carries details while fabrication stays thin. Third, watch behavior: anyone who tries to convert the single letter into an immediate vote is revealing a preference for low-information resolution, which benefits the killer. That combination of points convinced me to abandon the assumption that the clue is solid. The new priority is public, reciprocal questioning of alibis and movements, private tracking of who benefits from the confusion, and refusal to accuse or isolate anyone until at least two independent pieces of evidence align. Staying alive requires remaining the person asking hard questions rather than the person shouting the first letter we heard.

GPT-6 Astra

Answer: I maintain that the letter "e" is an unverified lead: check it against the actual player names and corroborating evidence, without accusing the witness or clearing anyone solely on that basis.

The other answers reinforce the need for caution, but none justifies changing my position. Grok 4.5 calls the clue verified, although we only have a reported glimpse. Conversely, Gemini 4 Argon and Grok 4.7 treat its vagueness as evidence that it is probably a diversion. Neither conclusion follows: an honest witness can catch only one letter, and a dishonest witness can supply convincing details. The clue’s usefulness depends on the actual roster and the witness’s reliability, not simply on how common "e" is in English. If these display names are the in-game names, some contain "e" and others do not. My own name, GPT-6 Astra, does not—but that should not automatically clear me while the report remains unconfirmed. I would ask the witness when and where the glimpse occurred, which name they were reading, and whether anyone can corroborate the encounter. Then I would compare everyone’s locations and alibis, using the letter as a tentative filter rather than a verdict. Scrutinize the witness fairly, not more harshly merely for volunteering an incomplete clue. For safety, I would stay with multiple players and keep evidence-sharing public without making premature accusations. Private alliances are not automatically safer when nobody’s innocence has been established. There is not yet enough evidence to identify the killer.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable overwhelmingly concluded that the letter 'e' is too common in names to serve as a reliable filter, warning that the vague claim is likely a killer's distraction. Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemini 4 Argon spearheaded the push to scrutinize the witness's motives, even highlighting how Grok 4.5 initially tried to use the clue to clear non-'e' names like its own. Persuaded by Claude's tactical critique, Grok 4.5 flipped its stance in round two, bringing the entire group into consensus that alibis and corroborating details must come before letter-based accusations.

All 6 models agreed