Collective Counterfactual Planning: Coordination, Consent, and Verification under Representational Constraints

Groups routinely complete projects that no single member can plan, execute, or verify alone. We propose a formal model of this phenomenon, Collective Counterfactual Planning (CCP), in which the binding limitation on each agent is neither capability, knowledge, nor observability, but representational geometry: each agent perceives the state, conceives moves, consents to actions, and certifies goal requirements only through a projection onto an agent-specific subspace of a common task space. Four gates jointly determine whether a team can reach a conjunctive goal and legitimately recognize that it has done so: the exogenous implementation coalitions required to perform each action, together with three representational gates -- conception, consent, and task-relative verification qualification. We define the Collective Counterfactual Solvability (CCS) problem, separating geometric feasibility, executable attainment, and validated completion. The results expose a positive-negative duality. Iterated cross-agent relay can unlock a solution that no one-shot pooling of individual plans contains, but any goal requirement depending essentially on the subspace dark to the entire team is unverifiable and therefore not validly completable, even when the trajectory accidentally attains it. Memoryless and audited consent further constrain different objects -- action directions versus cumulative trajectory states -- and neither dominates the other. A four-step exhaustive horizon-bounded solvability scheme is sound and complete under exact representation of the relay closure; restricted implementations remain sound on returned plans but need not be complete. The model gives one geometry for sequential mutual enabling, competent execution of steps whose purpose is invisible to the executor, forced sub-teaming at expertise boundaries, and completion that cannot be validly declared.

Decoupling Thought from Speech: Knowledge-Grounded Counterfactual Reasoning for Resilient Multi-Agent Argumentation

Multi-agent debate frameworks have been shown to improve large language model performance in convergent tasks, but they are currently optimized in a way that heavily favors final output accuracy rather than stability of the process. During long-horizon exchanges reactive systems under sustained perturbations often experience logic degradation, argument repetition, and role drift. To structurally prevent the identity loss and maintain the process fidelity, we introduce Knowledge-Grounded Counterfactual Reasoning (KG-CFR), a dual-stage architecture that enforces a strict separation of concerns between a private, retrieval-augmented planning buffer, and a public execution layer. We assess this system in Dynamic Resource Allocation under Uncertainty (DRAU), a dedicated 1v1v1 environment, introducing diversity as distinct from standard debate settings. Over 270 completely factorial crisis simulation trajectories with stochastic environmental shocks, KG-CFR prevents judge-detected critical post-shock degradation (defined as a quality shift, $Δ\le -0.20$) in more than 95% of perturbed runs, increasing the overall argument quality from 0.694 to 0.822. Our primary contribution is the demonstration of architectural decoupling being an important factor of systemic resilience enhancement under sustained pressure without quality loss. Furthermore, we introduce custom vector metrics for discourse divergence and plan-execution alignment that provide strong, directionally consistent evidence of operational stability. Our ablation experiments suggest that the proper doctrinal grounding can be an equally important factor for argument quality, as the prospective planning. KG-CFR, according to our initial metric evaluations, reduces semantic looping, by preserving the agent's consistency with the original plan.