Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong average performance yet remain unreliable at the instance level, with frequent hallucinations, brittle failures, and poorly calibrated confidence. We study reliability through the lens of multi-model consensus: given responses from several heterogeneous LLMs, can we learn which answer is most likely correct for a given query? We introduce a Multi-Model Consensus Reasoning Engine that treats the set of LLM outputs as input to a supervised meta-learner. The system maps natural language responses into structured features using semantic embeddings, pairwise similarity and clustering statistics, lexical and structural cues, reasoning-quality scores, confidence estimates, and model-specific priors, and then applies gradient-boosted trees, listwise ranking, and graph neural networks over similarity graphs of answers. Using three open-weight LLMs evaluated on compact, resource-constrained subsets of GSM8K, ARC-Challenge, HellaSwag, and TruthfulQA, our best graph-attention-based consensus model improves macro-average accuracy by 4.6 percentage points over the strongest single LLM and by 8.1 points over majority vote, while also yielding lower Brier scores and fewer TruthfulQA hallucinations. Ablation and feature-importance analyses show that semantic agreement and clustering features are most influential, with reasoning-quality and model-prior features providing complementary gains, suggesting supervised multi-model consensus is a practical route toward more reliable LLM behavior, even in a modest single-machine setup.