Frontier models answer your question separately, then argue about each other's answers. What survives the argument gets written up as one answer.
Most tools ask one model and hand you the output. This one makes several of them commit separately, then defend it.
Every model gets the same question and none of them can see what the others said. Agreement only tells you something when it was reached independently — the moment models read each other first, they start agreeing for social reasons rather than factual ones.
Each one reads the others and goes after the weakest claim it can find. Invented figures and confident guesses rarely survive being read by a model with no reason to be polite.
A chair writes the final answer out of what held up. Disagreement that survived is kept and labelled rather than averaged away, so you get a range where the truth is a range.
Named, versioned, and shown to you every time — including how much the final answer leaned on each of them.
What this is not. It is not a majority vote, and it is not a way of making a weak model strong. Models can agree on the same wrong thing, and letting them talk can make that worse rather than better. What Synapse gives you is the working: several independent attempts, the objections each one raised, and a final answer that had to survive being read next to them. When they disagree, you see it — which is the part a single chat window hides.
Every question runs several frontier models end to end, so each one costs real money to answer. That is the whole reason there is a limit rather than a free tier that quietly gets worse.