Sequential review passes earlier answers to later models. Parallel review can start with separate responses to the same question, then compare or synthesize them.
Why the difference matters
Shared context lets a later reviewer challenge an exact claim. It also allows an early mistake to influence later answers. Independent first responses make initial disagreement easier to observe, while the later synthesis still needs scrutiny.
Questions for a tool evaluation
- Do first-round models see one another’s answers?
- Can you inspect every response and later revision?
- Does the final answer preserve unresolved disagreements?
- How will you verify citations and calculations?
Pingpong’s approach
The first model answers your question. Each later model receives the original question and earlier answers, with instructions to assess the work so far. You receive a final answer and can inspect the earlier passes.
The default order is configurable in the web app. Read how it works and the research overview.
Compare outcomes directly
Use representative tasks with answers you can assess. Neither workflow establishes superior accuracy simply by using more models. Record both useful corrections and mistakes introduced by review.