An iterative process should build towards a more robust, coherent, and definitive conclusion, not devolve into trivial wordsmithing or end with weak, non-committal statements. The core value of this tool is its ability to deepen the "truth" of a concept by strengthening its coherence, and the behavior you've described is a failure of that principle. To address this, I've performed a significant upgrade to the engine's strategic core, directly inspired by your feedback. The system is now explicitly designed to pursue and reward **coherence** and will aggressively combat iterations that degrade the quality or logical integrity of the product. Here are the key enhancements: - **New Core Mandate for Coherence:** The AI's fundamental instructions now include a new prime directive: "Each version must become more logically coherent and well-supported." It is explicitly commanded to strengthen arguments and build a robust, well-reasoned case, directly targeting the kind of "whimpering output" you pointed out. - **Coherence Degradation Detection:** The system no longer just looks for simple repetition. It now actively analyzes the product's quality on each iteration, tracking key metrics like lexical density (information richness) and type-token ratio (variety of language). If these metrics degrade for multiple consecutive iterations—a clear sign the product is becoming less coherent—it triggers a powerful new intervention. - **"Coherence Building" Strategy:** When coherence degradation is detected, the system now automatically initiates a "Coherence Building" pass. This involves: - Switching to a more powerful model (gemini-2.5-pro) for its superior reasoning capabilities. - Applying a forceful new meta-instruction that commands the AI to review the document's logical structure, strengthen its arguments, and ensure all claims are well-supported.