Generative AI, and specifically GPT, can produce a remarkable solution to a mechanical engineering analysis problem - but also, on occasion, a flawed solution. For example, an elementary mechanics problem is solved flawlessly in one GPT instance and incorrectly in a subsequent GPT instance, with a success probability of only 85%. This unreliability renders "out-of-the-box" GPT unsuitable for deployment in education or engineering practice. We introduce an "N-Plus-1" GPT Agency for Initial (Low-Cost) Analysis of mechanical engineering Problem Statements. Agency first launches N instantiations of Agent Solve to yield N independent Proposed Problem Solution Realizations; Agency then invokes Agent Compare to summarize and compare the N Proposed Problem Solution Realizations and to provide a Recommended Problem Solution. We argue from Condorcet's Jury Theorem that, for a Problem Statement characterized by per-Solve success probability greater than 1/2 (and N sufficiently large), the Predominant (Agent Compare) Proposed Problem Solution will, with high probability, correspond to a Correct Proposed Problem Solution. Furthermore, Agent Compare can also incorporate aspects of Secondary (Agent Compare) Proposed Problem Solutions, in particular when the latter represent alternative Problem Statement interpretations - different Mathematical Models - or alternative Mathematical Solution Procedures. Comparisons to Grok Heavy, a commercial multi-agent model, show similarities in design and performance, but also important differences in emphasis: our Agency focuses on transparency and pedagogical value.