The chair cannot review every pending halacha. Three independent-lineage judges
(Opus via claude_session · DeepSeek · Gemini-2.5-flash — #1 on LegalBench) vote
on the COARSE axis we proved reliable across models (92%): "is this a genuine,
keepable rule?". Only an agreed verdict acts; every split escalates to the chair
(INV-G10). Buckets: clean→KEEP?; nli_unsupported→entailment re-adjudication;
extraction-defects→re-extraction.
halacha_panel_calibrate.py calibrates the voting policy on the gold-set's
is_holding (the coarse label) per Trust-or-Escalate (ICLR 2025): unanimous →
94.9% precision / 78% coverage; majority → 92.9% / 99%; ZERO false-drops in
both (the panel never rejects a good rule). Chosen policy (chair-approved):
clean→majority-2/3, nli→asymmetric (majority-reject, unanimous-approve),
defects→re-extraction. Reversible (--apply backs up review_status+flags first).
Sources: Panel-of-LLM-Evaluators (PoLL) · Trust-or-Escalate (ICLR 2025,
arXiv:2407.18370) · selective-prediction / learning-to-defer.
Invariants: upholds G10 (human gate — splits escalate, panel only collapses the
queue) and G9 (provenance — reviewer records the panel + policy). Read paths only
in calibrate; --apply writes review_status/quality_flags reversibly with backup.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
