Deliberative Calibration

Purpose

Produce a fully calibrated ranking when the candidate set is small enough (5-15 items) to allow complete or near-complete pairwise comparison. Leverages parametric models (Bradley-Terry, Thurstone) and structured weighting (AHP) to extract maximum information from each comparison.

When to use

• Candidate count N ≤ 15
• Complete comparison matrix is feasible (N(N-1)/2 pairs manageable)
• High precision required — every rank position matters
• Calibrated strength scores needed, not just ordinal ranking

Budget

State Ledger

candidates: []          # list of items being ranked
comparison_matrix: {}   # pair → {winner, confidence, reasoning}
ratings: {}             # candidate → score
method: ""              # bradley-terry | thurstone | ahp | borda
iteration: 0
convergence: {stable: false, score: 0.0}
consistency: {cr: null, cycles: []}

Available Tactics

• adaptive-pair-selection — select next pairs by information gain, compare, update, check convergence
• consistency-audit-loop — verify transitivity, repair inconsistencies

Available SOPs

• pair-selector
• comparison-executor
• rating-update
• convergence-check
• cycle-detection
• inconsistency-localization
• ranking-synthesis

Execution Guidance

1. Initialize ratings uniformly for all candidates
2. Run adaptive-pair-selection tactic until convergence or complete matrix
3. Run consistency-audit-loop to verify transitivity
4. If CR > 0.1, re-compare flagged pairs and recompute
5. Produce final ranking via ranking-synthesis

Output Format

ranking:
  - {rank: 1, candidate: "...", score: 0.95, ci: [0.91, 0.99]}
  - {rank: 2, candidate: "...", score: 0.82, ci: [0.77, 0.87]}
method: bradley-terry
consistency_ratio: 0.04
total_comparisons: 28
convergence_iterations: 3