Ambiguous agreement analysis
Compare the rulings.
Interrogate the adjective.
Put three verdicts on “professional” and “complete” side by side. Local NLP extracts outcomes, obligations, negations, and suspiciously shared language before you accept a majority.
Computed panel result
No panel analysis yet.
Load the worked dispute or add three substantive rulings.
Obligation conflicts
Extracted must, shall, required, may, and no-obligation sentences appear here.
Pairwise language
Normalized overlap and longest shared phrases appear here.
Boundary: this is language analysis, not a truth oracle or a reproduction of GenLayer consensus. Similar wording can indicate shared evidence, boilerplate, or correlated reasoning; inspect provenance before treating votes as independent.
Why this matters
Independence is a property of the 
reasoning path, not the vote count.
Three verdicts can still behave like one opinion when they inherit the same prompt, source, model family, or copied rationale.
The workbench separates outcome agreement from language overlap. That distinction does not prove independence, but it reveals where a validator should ask for provenance, diversity, or a genuinely fresh appeal.
An appeal adds information only when the replacement review can change the evidence or reasoning path. Recounting correlated votes changes the number, not the basis of judgment.