A consensus of confidence and self-consistency through consensus seem fine for certain kinds of tasks, especially ones that involve recalling training. This is a bit like scaling up determinism, obedience, collectivism vs individualism... which seems fine for many math problems. Neither confidence or consensus are the best way to confirm truth or accuracy in a generalized way.

The previous self-consistency approach and this confidence pruning approach aren't really novel, but it's nice to see the numbers run. Fundamentally these approaches are about handling contradicting results, but not resolving the contradictions or increasing the quality of reasoning. What if the rare idea is the right answer? You can squeeze the training juice harder, but if you still get the wrong answer when it really really mattered, you're just left with a stress toy in your hand.