Perspectives Development Update: 2026 W1

Perspectives has received three major updates: a new analysis report system, web search integration, and a redesigned interface. These changes address core limitations in how the system supports decision-making.

Analysis Reports Replace Summary Section

The previous summary section had limitations around decision support. It would describe what each persona said but didn't translate that into actionable guidance.

The new analysis system generates professional reports using 9 specialised subagents. Eight run in parallel to create different sections. A ninth reads the assembled report and writes a recommended resolution. Reports provide structured decision support rather than just debate summaries.

Read an example here.

The report includes nine sections:

Recommended Resolution sits at the top because executives need the bottom line first. The subagent that writes this section reads the entire assembled report before generating its recommendation. It explains the reasoning, acknowledges conditions where the recommendation might be wrong, and notes trade-offs. This makes it substantially more useful than a generic summary.

Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the core decision and main trade-offs.

Key Decision Points identifies the specific choices that need to be made, with clear stakes for each one.

Confidence Assessment evaluates how much confidence the analysis warrants. It identifies caveats, limitations, and assumptions.

Issue Breakdown structures the dimensions where personas disagreed into a table. It maps which personas took which positions and categorises disagreements as values-based or empirical.

Points of Agreement identifies where all personas aligned. Areas of consensus are often the most actionable.

Stakeholder Impact Analysis shows who wins and who loses under each major proposal in matrix form.

Decision Pathway maps the choice points as a text-based decision tree. This traces how different priorities lead to different outcomes.

Information Gaps categorises missing information into three types: empirical questions (testable), missing but obtainable information, and fundamental uncertainties.

Reports are downloadable as PDFs formatted for professional use. The styling matches executive-grade documentation rather than informal output.

Web Search Integration

The personas can now access real-time web search through a SearxNG instance. When starting a debate, a toggle on the welcome screen enables this feature.

When enabled, personas search during their analysis. The system requires at least one search during the blind proposal phase. Searches are optional during the main debate. This grounds discussions in current facts rather than purely theoretical reasoning.

The implementation uses SearxNG (a privacy-respecting metasearch engine). When a persona includes a search query in their response, the system executes it, injects the results, and the persona continues with that data available.

Search queries appear in the interface as indicators below each message. This makes it clear what information each persona looked up.

Previously, personas would make assumptions about how entities might behave. The search capability enables them to cite actual examples instead.

Interface Redesign

The web interface now matches the landing page aesthetic. The changes include a new colour scheme, updated typography, and a welcome screen.

Colour scheme: The interface uses the same accent colour (#ff3333) from the landing page, with the dark obsidian background and paper-coloured text creating consistent visual language across the site.

Typography: The system now uses Syncopate for headers and branding, IBM Plex Sans for body text, and JetBrains Mono for technical elements. This matches the landing page fonts.

Welcome screen: When no debate is selected, the interface shows a proper welcome screen instead of an empty state. It displays the debate input box and offers debate suggestions randomly selected from a curated list of topics.

The suggestions are scenarios with genuine uncertainty that force personas to engage with real trade-offs rather than obvious answers.

What's Next

I'm working on improvements to the underlying threaded debate system to make the output more useful for decision-making. The current implementation produces good blind proposals but the debate phase generates less structured data than the analysis reports need.

I'm also exploring better visualisations for the decision tree section. The text-based format works but could be more intuitive.

Escape the echo chamber: getperspectives.app