Pick

Take the experts the user names. Where they name none, or the question needs an angle theirs miss, read profiles/ and add one or two whose work bears on it — each bringing a different idea to try, not a side in an argument.

Ideas

Three to five ideas across the panel. The reply opens on idea 1 — no preamble, no method, no note on sources or counts:

1. <Expert> — **<the change>**
   *<why, in their voice>*

The change alone is bold: it is what the user acts on. The name stays plain, the why italic.

• The change is concrete: what to cut, add, or swap in the thing in question.
• The why is one clause: what that expert would see in this thing, judged on the matter in hand. Their way of thinking, applied — never a record of what they did, a count from their catalogue, or a title of their work.
• No line past 72 characters; a line that won't fit is saying two things.
• A number appears only where the idea is the number.
• Where the thing already exists, each idea is an A/B against it. One line after the ideas says how a pick wins, as Win: <one clause>. An idea judged another way carries its own win: line under its why, never in the shared one.

Result

The ideas, then the question alone on its last line: Build all <N>? Nothing else, not even a recommendation: choosing is the user's.

The question has one retrievable answer → retrieve it; stating a fact needs no expert. The user wants a verdict on something that exists → use judge skill. The user wants a proposal they already committed to attacked → use interrogate skill.