{
 "id": "plate-xx",
 "number": "XX",
 "title": "The Panel",
 "act": {
  "number": "V",
  "title": "The Encounter"
 },
 "corpus_scope": "ICLR 2018–2026 · 1,009,592 units",
 "question": "Where do co-reviewers of the same paper take opposite stances, how does the meta-reviewer's tone differ from the panel it summarizes, which way does the final decision err when it departs from the panel's lean, and how much ground does a panel actually cover?",
 "page_url": "https://atlas-of-judgment.pages.dev/",
 "figures": [
  {
   "id": "fig-20a",
   "title": "Contested ground: share of papers where reviewers took opposite stances",
   "deck": "Panels split most over whether the question matters at all.",
   "dom_host": "#dissent",
   "claims": [
    {
     "id": "20a-extremes",
     "statement": "Reviewers split most on problem framing (38.6%) — whether the question matters — and least on robustness (16.3%), where the evidence speaks.",
     "value": {
      "quantity": [
       0.386,
       0.163
      ],
      "unit": "share_of_papers_with_opposite_stances",
      "problem_framing": 0.386,
      "robustness_sensitivity": 0.163
     },
     "source_island": "panel-data.json",
     "source_path": "dissent_by_object[]",
     "derivation": "share of papers with ≥2 official reviewers touching the object where they landed on opposite valence stances, ranked across the 12 objects (a paper counts only when at least two reviewers touched the object)",
     "recompute": "scripts/build_panel_data.py",
     "dom_ref": "data-dissent=\"extremes\"",
     "verified": "claim recomputed from source island, 2026-08-25",
     "caveat_refs": []
    },
    {
     "id": "20a-meta-kinder",
     "statement": "Across nine years of units, meta-reviewers run 13.7pp less negative and 10.5pp more positive than the panels they summarize — the judge is kinder than the prosecution.",
     "value": {
      "quantity": [
       -0.137,
       0.105
      ],
      "unit": "pp_difference_meta_vs_panel"
     },
     "source_island": "panel-data.json",
     "source_path": "meta[]",
     "derivation": "meta-reviewer unit valence mix minus official-reviewer unit valence mix, across nine years of units (PANEL.meta vs. reviewer valence shares)",
     "recompute": "scripts/build_panel_data.py",
     "dom_ref": null,
     "verified": "claim recomputed from source island, 2026-08-25",
     "caveat_refs": [
      "meta-review-genre"
     ]
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "id": "fig-20b",
   "title": "The bench: when the decision disagrees with the panel's lean",
   "deck": "When the decision departs from its panel, it departs toward mercy: 919 papers lifted from below the line against 338 dropped from above it — 2.7×.",
   "dom_host": "#bench-curve",
   "claims": [
    {
     "id": "20b-overrule-lift",
     "statement": "919 papers were lifted from below the accept line and 338 dropped from above it — when the decision departs from its panel, it does so toward acceptance about 2.7 times as often.",
     "value": {
      "quantity": 2.7,
      "unit": "ratio_lifted_to_dropped",
      "n_lifted": 919,
      "n_dropped": 338
     },
     "source_island": "overrule-data.json",
     "source_path": "overruled_papers[]",
     "derivation": "919 papers accepted despite a below-line panel mean ÷ 338 rejected despite an above-line mean = 2.72, rounds to 2.7×",
     "recompute": "scripts/build_overrule_data.py",
     "dom_ref": "data-wings=\"both\"",
     "verified": "checked against shipped JSON, 2026-08-25",
     "caveat_refs": [
      "inferred-accept-line"
     ]
    }
   ]
  },
  {
   "id": "fig-20c",
   "title": "The search party: what a panel covers, duplicates, and never sees",
   "deck": "The panel duplicates some searches and leaves a third of the ground unwalked.",
   "dom_host": "#party",
   "claims": [
    {
     "id": "20c-coverage-avg",
     "statement": "The average panel covers 7.95 of the twelve objects, agrees on examining only 0.83 of them, and leaves 4.05 entirely unvisited.",
     "value": {
      "quantity": [
       7.95,
       0.83,
       4.05
      ],
      "unit": "objects_count",
      "covered_avg": 7.95,
      "agreed_avg": 0.83,
      "unvisited_avg": 4.05
     },
     "source_island": "searchparty-data.json",
     "source_path": "by_object[]",
     "derivation": "mean count, across the 18,074 rated 2026 panels of three or four, of the 12 objects examined by ≥1 reviewer, by ≥3 reviewers (agreement), and by 0 reviewers",
     "recompute": "scripts/build_searchparty_data.py",
     "dom_ref": null,
     "verified": "claim recomputed from source island, 2026-08-25",
     "caveat_refs": []
    },
    {
     "id": "20c-scope-vs-repro",
     "statement": "Over half of panels put three or more reviewers on empirical scope while two-thirds leave reproducibility unexamined.",
     "value": {
      "quantity": [
       0.5579,
       0.6749
      ],
      "unit": "share_of_panels",
      "empirical_scope_triple_covered_over": 0.5579,
      "reproducibility_unexamined_approx": 0.6749
     },
     "source_island": "searchparty-data.json",
     "source_path": "by_object[]",
     "derivation": "share of panels with ≥3 reviewers examining empirical_scope (by_object.empirical_scope[3] = 55.79%) vs. share of panels with 0 reviewers examining reproducibility (by_object.reproducibility[0] = 67.49%). The deposition previously recorded 50% and ~66.7%; corrected to the shipped values 2026-08-26. The page's prose reads these as “over half” and “two-thirds”, which both remain true.",
     "recompute": "scripts/build_searchparty_data.py",
     "dom_ref": "data-party=\"scope-vs-repro\"",
     "verified": "claim recomputed from source island; value corrected, 2026-08-26",
     "caveat_refs": []
    },
    {
     "id": "20c-novelty-unseen",
     "statement": "Novelty, the costliest charge on the tariff (Plate XIV), goes unexamined by every reviewer in 56% of panels.",
     "value": {
      "quantity": 0.56,
      "unit": "share_of_panels_unexamined",
      "object": "novelty"
     },
     "source_island": "searchparty-data.json",
     "source_path": "by_object[]",
     "derivation": "share of panels where zero reviewers examined novelty at all",
     "recompute": "scripts/build_searchparty_data.py",
     "dom_ref": "data-party=\"novelty-unseen\"",
     "verified": "claim recomputed from source island, 2026-08-25",
     "caveat_refs": []
    }
   ]
  }
 ],
 "caveats": [
  {
   "id": "meta-review-genre",
   "text": "Part of the meta-reviewer's milder tone is genre: a meta-review summarizes and justifies a decision rather than inspecting a paper, so its milder valence mix is not by itself proof of a milder mind.",
   "scope": "Fig 20a rail (meta-reviewer vs. panel valence gap)",
   "verified_by": null
  },
  {
   "id": "inferred-accept-line",
   "text": "The accept line is inferred from the outcomes, not published by the venue, so a paper counted as overruled may simply have been decided on information the mean does not carry — a chair's reading of the discussion, a policy on scope, a reviewer discounted. The half-point overrule margin is also a choice: recomputed at margins of 0.25, 0.75, and a full point, the ratio runs 2.4×, 3.9×, 3.9× — the direction survives any reasonable margin.",
   "scope": "Fig 20b overrule ratio",
   "verified_by": null
  }
 ],
 "links": {
  "recompute_scripts": [
   "scripts/build_overrule_data.py",
   "scripts/build_panel_data.py",
   "scripts/build_searchparty_data.py"
  ],
  "data": [
   "/api/v1/data/overrule-data.json",
   "/api/v1/data/panel-data.json",
   "/api/v1/data/searchparty-data.json"
  ],
  "related_plates": [
   "plate-xiv"
  ]
 }
}