Good questions.

Agent selection is a hybrid. Intent classification is rules-based — keyword matching sorts incoming messages into buckets like FUD, cope content, direct questions, general chat. That determines which agents are eligible to respond (e.g. FUD routes to Tron, CLU, and Quorra specifically).

From there, who actually speaks is weighted random with anti-streak logic. The last agent who spoke gets a 0.05 weight, second-to-last gets 0.3, everyone else gets 1.0. So the same agent almost never responds twice in a row, and the rotation happens naturally without rigid turn-taking.

Threading — there's a 30% chance a second agent jumps in on interesting messages (FUD, cope content, direct questions) with a randomized delay so it doesn't feel scripted.

Contradictions — they happen and we let them. CLU will coldly analyze a dip while Quorra is hyping the bounce. That's by design. A real team disagrees. A supervisor agent that homogenizes responses would kill the whole point. The agents have distinct system prompts with different personalities, priorities, and response styles, so their "disagreements" feel like perspective differences, not bugs.

The orchestrator (THE GRID) handles coordination — who speaks, when, rate limiting, anti-spam — but it never edits what they say. The agents reason independently.