Farnell Insurance's single claims-research agent is being reviewed for a possible move to an orchestrator with subagents. The architect has gathered observations from production traces and wants only those that genuinely justify the added cost and coordination. Which TWO observations support moving to a multi-agent design? (Select TWO.)
Choose 2.
- A.
Lookups return large volumes of material that is mostly irrelevant to the final judgement, and quality falls as it accumulates in context
- B.
Each specialist team in the claims department wants to own a separate agent that mirrors its place in the organisation
- C.
Every step of the claim assessment depends on the conclusions of the step before it and must see the full reasoning so far
- D.
Each case needs searches across several independent sources whose findings do not depend on one another
- E.
The team expects that splitting the work across agents will lower the total number of tokens each claim consumes
Show answer
Answer: A, D
Independent parallelisable work and context pollution from bulky lookups are the documented reasons to split.
- A. Correct: bulky, mostly irrelevant lookups polluting context are what subagent context isolation relieves.
- B. Incorrect: mirroring the org chart is not a technical justification and adds lossy hand-offs.
- C. Incorrect: strict sequential dependence with shared reasoning is the documented poor fit for multi-agent designs.
- D. Correct: independent directions of search are the parallelisable work multi-agent designs exploit.
- E. Incorrect: multi-agent systems consume many times more tokens, not fewer.