Niranjan Paranjape

Orchestrator Paradox and How to Avoid It

June 14, 2025

One of the most counterintuitive discoveries from think-center experiments: automated orchestration makes results worse, not better.

The Paradox

You'd expect that having an AI orchestrator choose which perspective to engage would be optimal. After all, it could analyze the query, match it to the best perspective, and route accordingly.

But in practice:

  • "Weaver, what's the pattern here?" → Clear, insightful pattern recognition
  • "Council, handle this" → Generic, watered-down response

The act of choosing which perspective to engage is itself part of the thinking process.

Why This Happens

1. Selection is Cognition

When you choose "Maker" for a building task, you're already doing conceptual work. You've categorized the problem as one of construction rather than analysis. This pre-processing shapes everything that follows.

2. Uncertainty Breeds Genericness

When the system must choose, it hedges. Like a committee trying to please everyone, it produces responses that are technically correct but lack the sharp insight of a committed perspective.

3. Human Context is Irreplaceable

You know whether you need strategic insight (Weaver) or tactical steps (Maker) based on context the AI can't fully access - your current state, what you tried before, where you're stuck.

How to Avoid It

Direct Invocation

Good: "Maker, how do we implement this API?"
Better: "Maker, I need concrete steps for implementing this REST API with proper error handling"
Best: "Maker, I'm stuck on error handling for this API - what's the XP way?"

Sequential Engagement

Instead of asking for orchestration, engage perspectives in sequence:

  1. Start with your best guess: "Weaver, analyze this problem"
  2. If you need different insight: "Checker, what's Weaver missing?"
  3. For implementation: "Maker, build on Weaver's analysis"

Explicit Handoffs

When one perspective suggests another should take over, make the handoff explicit:

Weaver: "This needs tactical execution. Shall we ask Maker?"
You: "Yes, Maker please take Weaver's strategy and make it concrete."

The Beautiful Constraint

This "limitation" is actually a feature. It keeps you engaged as the conductor of your own thinking. You're not delegating cognition - you're collaborating with multiple modes of thought.

The orchestrator paradox teaches us that the most powerful thinking happens when humans and AI work together, not when one tries to automate the other away.

Practical Tip

Start with the perspective that matches your current energy:

  • Feeling analytical? → Weaver
  • Ready to build? → Maker
  • Something feels off? → Checker
  • Need psychological insight? → O/G

Trust your instinct. The right perspective often chooses itself.