multi-judge-aggregation

---
name: multi-judge-aggregation
description: Collect independent rankings from multiple judges, aggregate using social choice methods, and identify disagreement hotspots.
execution: tactic
used-by: pairwise-ranking
---

# Multi-Judge Aggregation

Collect independent ballots from multiple judges or perspectives, aggregate them into a consensus ranking using social choice theory, and surface disagreement patterns for further investigation.

## Stages

1. **Collect** — ballot-collection gathers independent rankings from each judge/perspective
2. **Aggregate** — aggregation-method applies social choice method to produce consensus
3. **Audit** — cycle-detection checks for Condorcet cycles in the aggregated preference matrix

## Available SOPs

| Stage | SOP | Input | Output |
|-------|-----|-------|--------|
| Collect | ballot-collection | candidates[], perspectives[] | ballots[] |
| Aggregate | aggregation-method | ballots[], method | consensus_ranking |
| Audit | cycle-detection | comparison_matrix | cycles[], transitivity_score |

## Execution Guidance

- Ensure judges evaluate independently (no anchoring or information leakage)
- Use ≥3 judges for meaningful aggregation
- Default to Schulze method (satisfies many desirable social choice properties)
- Cross-validate with Borda count as sanity check
- Flag pairs where judge agreement < 60% as disagreement hotspots
- If Condorcet cycles exist, report them explicitly — do not silently resolve

## Minimum Yield

- Consensus ranking + disagreement heatmap
- Consensus ranking with method used and confidence
- Disagreement heatmap: for each pair, what fraction of judges agree
- Condorcet winner identification (or explicit statement of cycle)
- Per-judge deviation from consensus (who disagrees most, on what)