They're basically there to double check your results (this isn't quite true with HPF2 though - see below).

Some project scientists like to have the WU's double checked for each and every WU returned - so as to ensure that the results are true and valid, whilst others have decided (perhaps after checking/verifying that they're happy running with Zero Redundancy (ZR)), that their project only requires 1 copy to be processed. For ZR projects though, every so often, your computer will have a result turn "Inconclusive", where another copy is sent out to be double checked - this is just to ensure the integrity of the WU's remain high.

With regards to HPF2, this is slightly different, in that, there are actually 19 copies generated - each of them slightly different so as to provide a different set of results. So, in effect, HPF2, could be said to be a ZR project as well - albeit, with a twist... In a few moments, I'll go grab a link to the FAQ's that describe this fuller.... Here's the FAQ link - Re: Results Status page - HPF2 project

In the justiceSystem, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. By analogy and in contrast, in the WCG quorumSystem, a WU is deemed as suspect unless cleared by the wingWU. That sounds like the quorumSystem is fundamentally flawed until one realizes that, in the realm of science and engineering, the 'good result' is difficult to bring about and that it is very easy, and therefore very common, that a 'bad result' comes by -- hence the need for verification by way of the done wingWU.

Of the good WUs, some were done faster and others done average to slow. This is particularly pronounced in a 2-party quorum setup. One issue I have with the quorumSystem is that, during validation, the faster-done WUs do not get recognition above those given to slower-done WUs: the slower-done WUs gets the same points as the faster-done WUs. Stated in another way, the slower-done WUs is, in effect, rewarded for doing its work average to below-average by the same points taken away as, in effect, a punishment from faster-done WUs for doing its work above-average.

For DSFL_v6.19 WUs, I have never seen an instance where my WUs is without a wingWU.
;

Either I exposed a true weakness in the quorumSystem out in the open, which no amount of denial will ever rectify so that it hurts enough for one to say "let it go", or I have yet to learn from your counter-arguments that explains why the quorumSystem is superior to other validation methods.
;

Gang:
Thanks for the explanations... it's clear now why we have wingmen. As for andzgrid comment about the speed in which the results are returned/processed, I think that so long they are completed in the specified time allotted for them, the programmed points should be awarded. I don't think that anybody should be "punished" for having a single core CPU just because they're wingman has a six core i7 CPU. This is a volunteer activity that is donating CPU processing time to solving world health problems. I find it just as rewarding if somebody can donate 1hour of CPU a day as somebody else that can donate 24 hours of CPU. You do the best with what you have.

Thanks,
CJSL

The advantage to the Quorum system, as it is done now by Boinc, is that WE THE CRUNCHERS do all the work, the Projects Server just checks the results and awards credits or resends the unit to some other pc, depending o nthe results. There is little actual hands on work needed by the Admins except when things go sideways or problems come up. Things DO come up all the time, they are pc's after all, so don't get the idea that it is THAT easy to run a project. But there are computer nerds running small time projects everwhere just because Boinc is set up to be a 'run on its own' system.