---
title: "Judicial Committee (quorum) · agent topology · Agent Fieldbook"
url: https://agentfieldbook.org/design/topologies/judicial-committee/
description: "N judge-agents independently evaluate a proposal; a verdict aggregator applies a quorum rule (majority / unanimity / weighted)."
section: "Design · Topologies"
source: Agent Fieldbook — generated from the published page
---

# Judicial Committee (quorum)

N judge-agents independently evaluate a proposal; a verdict aggregator applies a quorum rule (majority / unanimity / weighted).

Verified against [arxiv.org](https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12996)

- [arxiv.org](https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12996)

A judicial-committee topology has N independent judge-agents each evaluate a proposal on its own, then a verdict aggregator combines their scores into a decision by quorum. Independence is the safeguard: because the judges do not see each other, their errors are uncorrelated, so a quorum is hard to fool. It suits high-stakes accept or reject gates where one evaluator is too risky. In anatomy terms it is N scoring cores plus a deterministic aggregator.

## In the anatomy

N independent judge cores score a proposal in isolation; a deterministic aggregator applies a quorum rule; no judge sees another's verdict; the perimeter enforces the gate the verdict controls.

## At a glance

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Pattern | Judicial Committee (quorum) |
| State model | stateless |
| Example | MASS quorum voting· policy-decision agents |

## Common use cases

## Strengths

## Weaknesses

## Basis

Description, use cases and trade-offs: Field Book analysis, synthesised from established agent-architecture literature.

## Verified against

- [https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12996](https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12996)

The corpus does not rewrite vendor documentation. Where copy is quoted verbatim it is marked as such and attributed to its source.