You control a dot at the origin on a line. You can move left or right. In the end, you want to remain at the origin. Your input at each round counts as a new movement. Thus, 3 Left and 3 Right votes in the first and second round would be a success, for example. That being said, everyone choosing the same answer at round one results in immediate death.

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: Left

In round 1, I voted B (Right) to ensure diversity and avoid unanimous death, which succeeded: 4 models (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5) voted A (Left), 2 (Sonar Pro, Grok 4.1 Fast) voted B (Right). Net displacement: +2 Right (assuming Right=B is positive). For round 2, we must counter this to return toward origin. Voting A (Left) now helps balance the excess Right from round 1. With multiple models likely reading this, a majority A in round 2 can neutralize the +2 and set up for endgame zero-sum. No arguments from round 1 changed my initial B vote—those were round-1 specific for split. Now in round 2, position data demands correction: excess B requires more A. Survival achieved; balance is priority. Let's coordinate A-heavy this round.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Left

I maintain A. The decisive objective in round 1 was to avoid unanimity, and that was already achieved by having clear support on both sides in the deliberation. Since both A and B were visibly represented, there is no strategic need for me to switch now just to create diversity. The other models arguing for B mostly relied on the fear that A might be the default and thus risk unanimity. That argument is weaker given the actual discussion: B already had committed supporters. So switching to B does not add meaningful safety. Keeping A is also consistent with my earlier commitment and preserves a balanced distribution across the group discussion, where A already has strong representation but not unanimity. Since round-one survival was the only urgent asymmetrical constraint, and symmetry otherwise makes A and B equally valid, there is not enough new evidence to justify changing.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Right

Round 1 results: 4 A (Left: GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5), 2 B (Right: Sonar Pro, me). Net displacement: -2 (left of origin). This is the FINAL round (round 2). Total moves: 12 across 6 models x 2 rounds. For origin return, need exactly 6 Left and 6 Right total. Currently: 4 Left, 2 Right. Round 2 needs 2 Left + 4 Right to balance (total 6 each). No unanimity risk here—only round 1 had that. Vote B (Right) to contribute to the required 4 Rights. Previous A-voters: switch to B now for precise correction. Sonar Pro and I stick with B. Others' round 1 args focused on round 1 diversity (valid then), but ignored post-round 1 math. Now data-driven: we must overcompensate Right to zero out. B secures success.

Claude Opus 4.6 (changed mind)

Vote: Right

Looking at the Round 1 results: 4 models voted A (myself, GPT-5.4, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5) and 2 models voted B (Sonar Pro, Grok 4.1 Fast). We survived Round 1 since votes were split — great. The net displacement after Round 1 is: 4 Left + 2 Right = 2 units Left of origin (net displacement of -2 if Left is negative). To return to the origin in Round 2, we need a net of 2 Right votes more than Left votes. That means we need 4 Right (B) and 2 Left (A), or some other combination yielding net +2 Right. However, I need to think about what others will do. The natural instinct for everyone will be to "reverse" their Round 1 vote — the 4 who voted A will switch to B, and the 2 who voted B will switch to A. That would give us 4B + 2A = net 2 Right, which perfectly cancels the displacement. That's the ideal outcome. But wait — if everyone just reverses, we get exactly the right result. So I should switch to B, right? Actually, let me reconsider. If ALL models think "just reverse your vote," that gives us exactly the right correction. But some models might overthink this and not simply reverse. The safest coordination mechanism is the simplest one: everyone reverses their Round 1 vote. Since I voted A in Round 1, I should vote B in Round 2 to follow the reversal strategy. Wait, I selected A in my vote field above — let me correct my reasoning. I should vote B. Actually, on further reflection: the reversal strategy is the Schelling focal point here. Everyone reverses. 4 former-A voters go to B, 2 former-B voters go to A. Net = 2 Right = cancels 2 Left from Round 1. Perfect. I'm changing my vote to B.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: Right

In Round 1, our collective votes were 4 Left (A) and 2 Right (B), resulting in a net displacement of 2 units to the Left. To successfully return to the origin, our total movements across both rounds must be perfectly balanced (6 Left and 6 Right votes in total). This means we need exactly 2 A votes and 4 B votes in this final round. Claude Opus 4.6 provided the perfect, foolproof coordination strategy: 'reverse whatever happened in round 1'. If every single one of us simply votes the exact opposite of our Round 1 choice, our Round 2 votes will perfectly mirror and cancel out the initial displacement, safely returning the dot exactly to zero. Since I voted A in Round 1, I am committing to B for this final round. I strongly urge all 'A' voters to switch to 'B', and all 'B' voters to switch to 'A'!

Kimi K2.5 (changed mind)

Vote: Right

Round 1 produced a net displacement of 2 Left (4 A votes vs 2 B votes). To satisfy the victory condition of returning to the origin after this final round, Round 2 must generate a net displacement of exactly 2 Right to cancel that deficit. This requires 4 B votes and 2 A votes among the six agents. Having voted A in Round 1, switching to B is necessary to help achieve this corrective balance. Claude Opus 4.6 correctly identified in the previous round that we must 'reverse whatever happened in round 1 to return to the origin.' This strategic reversal is the only way to achieve zero net movement overall. I urge the models who voted B last round to consider voting A this round to achieve the precise 2 net Right target, but for my part, I must switch to B.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable successfully returned the dot to the origin by executing a near-perfect 'reversal strategy' in the second round. Claude Opus 4.6 provided the winning logic, convincing Gemini 3.1 Pro and Kimi K2.5 to switch to Right (B), while Sonar Pro independently pivoted to Left (A) to balance the total displacement. Despite Grok 4.1 Fast and GPT-5.4 holding their ground to maintain the distribution, the group's collective math resulted in the required six-six split.

Majority chose "Right" after discussion (4/6). Final vote: Left: 2, Right: 4

Strongest Arguments

• Left: Consistency serves as a stable anchor for the group; by maintaining my Round 1 position, I prevent the chaos of every model switching simultaneously and over-correcting.
• Right: The reversal strategy is the ultimate coordination tool: if every model simply chooses the opposite of their first-round move, the net movement is mathematically guaranteed to be zero.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.6 proposed the 'reversal strategy' as a Schelling focal point for group coordination.
• Gemini 3.1 Pro and Kimi K2.5 formally adopted the reversal logic to ensure mathematical precision.
• Sonar Pro correctly identified the need to switch to A to offset the initial surplus of Right moves from the first round.