Judicial Committee (quorum)
N judge-agents independently evaluate a proposal; a verdict aggregator applies a quorum rule (majority / unanimity / weighted).
Verified against arxiv.org
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.
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.
- ·High-stakes accept or reject gates in safety, compliance or payouts.
- ·Content moderation that needs robustness.
- ·Any decision too risky for a single evaluator.
- ·Robust: uncorrelated errors are hard to fool.
- ·Tunable strictness via the quorum.
- ·Auditable: each judge's verdict is recorded.
- ·Independence guards against a single bad evaluator.
- ·N times the cost of one evaluation.
- ·Correlated judges (the same model) weaken the guarantee.
- ·The aggregation rule is a design decision with trade-offs.
- ·Latency of gathering every verdict.
Description, use cases and trade-offs: Field Book analysis, synthesised from established agent-architecture literature.
The corpus does not rewrite vendor documentation. Where copy is quoted verbatim it is marked as such and attributed to its source.