From da1987052cb8e6f42c4f3e26ec3c6d05e45b8251 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Greene <268381220+apcar@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2026 08:43:13 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Explain Model Council origin and evidence boundary

---
 README.md | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 425404a..e23aefc 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -33,6 +33,23 @@ logical-invocation budgets, durable audit records, restart recovery,
 idempotency, token rotation and revocation, single-writer fencing, and explicit
 operator authority.
 
+### Why I built it
+
+This began with a practical limitation in my own work. Giving one model several
+roles could broaden a response, but it did not create genuinely independent
+judgment: each role still inherited the same model lineage, training influences,
+policies, and blind spots. I wanted distinct providers to answer independently,
+evaluate blinded alternatives, preserve disagreement, and leave an inspectable
+record.
+
+That is a single-operator origin, not a validation result. Published research
+makes heterogeneous model juries and aggregation worth testing, but also
+documents correlated errors and inconsistent gains. The current test suite
+establishes software behavior; it does not show that nine calls outperform a
+strong single model. Establishing that would require matched-cost baselines,
+protocol ablations, and evaluation across additional users and task domains.
+See [Research](docs/RESEARCH.md).
+
 ## Four-stage council
 
 1. **Propose:** OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, and Mistral answer independently.