The iterative process: rounds, phases and convergence
Facilitation (Pronoia)
Why Delphi iterates
Delphi is not a one-shot survey. Its defining mechanism is iteration with controlled feedback: experts answer independently, then receive an anonymized picture of the whole panel's answers and reasoning, and reconsider in that light. Repeating this loop is what separates Delphi from a poll.
The iteration does specific work: it lets reasoning surface and be exchanged rather than just tallied; it gives people a structured chance to revise in response to arguments they had not considered; and across rounds it either moves the panel toward consensus or reveals a stable, well-understood dissensus — which is an equally valuable result.
The core sequence is: independent judgement → feedback → reconsideration. Anonymity and the staged release of feedback exist to protect that sequence from social pressure — bandwagon effects, dominance and anchoring — so that movement between rounds reflects better reasoning, not the loudest voice.
The Pronoia process at a glance
A study advances through a small state machine that the facilitator drives one step at a time:
Draft → Round 0 → Round 1 → Round 2… → Close → Analysis
Round 0 is the orientation, and it belongs to every variation; every numbered round runs the same internal sequence of phases; and the loop repeats until the facilitator closes the study and hands a clean dataset to analysis. The variation's own character begins when Round 1 opens: Real-Time Delphi runs one round in which responding and dialogue are open at the same time, and Barometer Delphi rates the same theses again from one wave to the next. Classic Delphi and Argument Delphi run the same process; they differ in the aim (consensus / dissensus) and in the indicators, not in the phases.
Round 0 — mapping and motivating (AI-assisted intake)
Round 0 is more than a setup screen. In Pronoia it is run as an AI-assisted chat dialogue that does two jobs at once:
- Motivating. The dialogue meets people where they are, explains what the study asks of them and why their view matters — so they arrive at Round 1 invested rather than cold.
- Mapping. It elicits how each participant frames the phenomenon — the issues, positions and tensions they see — which scopes the argument space and feeds directly into thesis design and the panel matrix.
Selective / key-informant variant. The dialogue does not have to be run with the whole panel. The facilitator can run it selectively with a handful of key informants — people who know the terrain — use their input to map the phenomenon and seed the theses, and then invite the wider panel straight into Round 1.
Whichever way it is run, Round 0 ends by fixing the two things that define the argument space: the panel (built as the orientation-appropriate matrix, cleared through its quality gates) and the theses (at least three, in the structure the orientation calls for). While in this setup state the facilitator can still edit and, where used, regenerate questions; once Round 1 opens, the instrument is locked so everyone answers the same questions.
The phases inside a round
Every numbered round runs the same four phases. Separating them is deliberate: it keeps "form your own view" apart from "engage with others", which is the heart of the Delphi method.
| Phase | What the panelist does | Sees others? | Interaction | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response (1a) | Answers each thesis independently | Not before submitting | Edit own answer | Capture genuine, un-anchored judgement |
| Dialogue (1b) | Reads the panel, comments and replies | Yes | Comment + reply, graph visible | Exchange reasoning, not just numbers |
| Revision | Updates positions in light of the dialogue | Yes | Edit own answer (tracked as a revision) | Let movement happen — and measure it |
| Closed | Round is locked | Yes (read-only) | None | Freeze a comparable snapshot before the next round |
The response and dialogue phases are also called 1a and 1b in the facilitator controls — sub-rounds of the same round.
A phase adds a capability, it never removes one. Opening the dialogue phase does not close answering: a panelist who did not get to answer can still answer during the dialogue, and may take part with the full repertoire for the whole round. The idea of Delphi is that a panelist can change their answer when someone else's reasoning gives a good reason — and that requires answering to stay open.
Controlled feedback: the visibility ladder
What a panelist can see is set per phase, and it is the main lever Pronoia gives the facilitator over anchoring. Three settings climb from fully protected to fully transparent:
| Visibility | Meaning | Effect on anchoring |
|---|---|---|
| Blind | Others' answers stay hidden for the whole phase | Maximum protection; use with deliberation |
| After-submit | No anchoring before you commit, then the panel and the aggregate graph open up | Protected where it matters, feedback where it helps (the eDelphi norm) |
| Open | The panel is visible throughout the phase | No protection by design; full transparency |
Alongside visibility, each phase independently controls whether commenting, replies and the result graph are available — which is how the response phase stays quiet and focused while the dialogue phase opens up the argument.
Policy presets — choosing an iteration stance
Rather than set every phase by hand, the facilitator picks a preset that encodes a methodological stance; individual phases can still be overridden per round.
| Preset | Response phase | Dialogue / revision | When to use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classic | After-submit, no graph | Open | Staged Delphi with anchoring protection — the default |
| Real-time (RTD) | Open | Open | Continuous, always-open eDelphi; the round never closes for staged feedback |
| Open | Open, graph visible | Open | Full transparency from the first answer — workshops, teaching, low-stakes panels |
| Barometer | Open, recurring | Open | The same theses rated again from one wave to the next; tracks how positions move over time rather than converging in one study |
Preset and variation are different things. The Classic preset is the shared stance of Classic Delphi and Argument Delphi — the same process, a different aim. Real-Time Delphi is a different cadence rather than a different method: instead of discrete rounds, the panel answers and sees feedback continuously for the length of one round, and the facilitator closes when the picture is stable. Barometer Delphi is a monitoring stance: the same instrument is measured again wave by wave, a thesis may be retired between waves and replaced by a new one, and change over time is itself a finding.
Revision and movement
The point of feedback is to make informed movement possible. When a panelist changes an answer during the dialogue or revision phases, Pronoia records it as a revision rather than overwriting silently — so the facilitator can see how much and where the panel moved between rounds.
That movement is read against the panel pulse — the consensus / dissensus picture per thesis. Convergence shows where the panel is settling; persistent dissensus shows where a real, structured disagreement lives. Both are signals for the next decision.
Crucially, the learning movement is not uniform across the panel. Different groups — expertise areas, stakeholder positions or observation distances — typically behave differently: some converge quickly, others hold their ground, others shift only late. Reading movement by group is central to describing how the panel actually learns — and it is also where the most effective nudging happens: simply surfacing that one group has moved while another has not is itself a prompt for the lagging group to reconsider. Pronoia's group comparison along the panel-matrix axes makes these differential movements visible.
The panelist Home — real-time data that fuels iteration
Iteration only works if panelists come back and engage. The panelist Home view is designed to make that happen: it turns the panel's live data into something informative and absorbing, so that seeing the panel move makes the panelist want to move too.
The view adapts to where the panelist is. On the first visit, before they have answered, it stays deliberately minimal — a short "About this study" and a direct route into the questions — so nothing stands between them and their first independent answer. Once they have answered, the layout puts the whole panel first:
See the pulse → Notice movement & tension → Revise → See your effect & learn
Why real-time data fuels iteration. Seeing live consensus form, or a tension open up around one's own position, is what moves a panelist to reconsider and revise. Each revision then changes the picture others see, which prompts further movement — and through that loop the panel, and each panelist, learns.
Tracking the panel — process metrics
Throughout the whole process Pronoia follows the panel with a small set of activity metrics. Together they show, at a glance, whether the panel is alive and engaging:
| Metric | What it counts | What it signals |
|---|---|---|
| Panelists | Members in the panel | The reach of the study |
| Respondents | Panelists who have answered | Response rate and coverage |
| Comments | Arguments and comments written | Depth of reasoning offered |
| Replies | Comments on comments | Genuine dialogue, not parallel monologue |
| Reactions | Lightweight responses to others | Low-effort engagement and attention |
| Revisions | Changes to answers and comments | The learning movement itself |
| Visits | Visits to the site | Sustained attention and return rate |
Revisions and replies are the most telling: they are the traces of panelists actually reconsidering in light of one another — the iteration working as intended.
Iterating across rounds — when to continue, when to close
After a round closes, the facilitator makes one decision: run another round, or stop.
- Run another round when positions are still moving, when dialogue raised new considerations that deserve a fresh answer, or when a thin panel has just been supplemented.
- Close when the panel has converged, or when dissensus is stable and well-understood — further rounds would add cost without insight.
Between rounds the facilitator can also act on panel health: if diversity was too thin, supplement the panel (or add perspective theses) before the next response phase, so the new round genuinely widens coverage rather than repeating the same voices.
Closing hands off to analysis. On close, the collected and validated material becomes the input to the analysis ecosystem (the DAE pipeline and its methods). Iteration in Pronoia ends exactly where structured analysis begins.
The facilitator's iteration playbook
- Set the stance first. Choose a preset (classic / RTD / open) that matches the stakes, and adjust individual phases only if you have a reason.
- Open with the intake dialogue. Run the AI-assisted Round 0 chat — with the full panel or a few key informants — to motivate participants and map the phenomenon before the theses are locked.
- Open Round 0, lock the instrument. Finalise panel and theses, then open Round 1 so everyone answers the same questions.
- Advance one phase at a time. Move response → dialogue → revision deliberately; let the response phase do its un-anchored work before opening the panel.
- Keep the panel engaged. Use reminders and messages, and point panelists to their live Home view — iteration only works if people return.
- Read the pulse before deciding. Look at convergence and dissensus per thesis, and how much positions moved, before choosing to iterate or close.
- Tend panel health between rounds. Supplement diversity where it was thin so the next round adds coverage.
- Close cleanly and hand off. Stop when consensus or stable dissensus is reached, lock the study, and pass the validated dataset to analysis.
Source: Pronoia — The Iterative Process (Metodix, June 2026).