Better Deck or Different Judge? Evaluating Agentic Harness Gains in Corporate and Investment Banking

We ask whether Jev, a typed classifier that returns probabilities over permitted answers without generating text, can replace an LLM rubric judge. We compare it with three flash-tier LLM judges on nine panels drawn from seven benchmarks, giving every judge identical criterion texts. Jev's accuracy differs significantly from an LLM judge's in only 8 of 27 paired comparisons, ahead mostly on binary criteria and behind only on graded ones, and most of the other comparisons are inconclusive. Summed over the nine panels, the LLM judges, called once per criterion, cost 29 to 325 times as much as Jev and took 30 to 220 times as long. On graded criteria all four judges agree more with one another than with the labels and mostly assign lower levels than the raters. One of several observational accounts is that raters followed scale conventions our criterion texts omit. Jev's confidence ranks its own errors on most panels, which should make a cheap classifier the ideal first stage of a cascade that defers its uncertain verdicts to an LLM judge. Correlated errors undo that advantage. The LLM judges repeat nearly all of Jev's most confident errors, so a cascade replayed on the recorded verdicts lowers cost but gains at most 1.5 points over the best single judge with cross-fitted thresholds, and at most 2.0 even with oracle thresholds.

Agentic data analysis systems produce rich outputs, including code, numerical results, and verbal diagnostics. This makes them more challenging to evaluate than single-turn LLM responses. It is therefore necessary to distinguish genuine disagreement between an agent's output and a ground-truth answer from grading artifacts. We investigate how reliably automated graders assess such a system and what strategies improve grading quality by applying LAMBDA, a multi-agent data-analysis system, on 153 numerical QRData tasks from DSGym. We develop and evaluate a three-layer human-AI grading cascade: strict regex matching, LLM-based lenient grading, and snippet-based human inspection, which combines non-GenAI and GenAI strategies with different failure profiles. Both automated graders achieve 100% observed precision (0/70 false positives). The lenient grader's recall is 97% against human labels. A keyword-anchored extraction pipeline raises the strict grader's recall by 60 percentage points over a last-number heuristic; the lenient grader is architecturally parser-independent. An iterative nudge mechanism raises grading run success from 36% to 97% and lenient-pass rates from 16% to 46%; comparing nudging with and without original-question re-injection shows that re-injection offers no benefit, confirming the nudge as an answer template cue. We further observe in this case study that variable type is the task metadata field most consistently associated with grading pipeline dynamics and observed outcome grades.

Validating an LLM judge against human annotations usually means reporting several agreement statistics: accuracy, precision, recall, $F_1$, Cohen's $κ$, and one or more rank correlations. A survey of 24 recent LLM-as-judge papers finds metric choice entangled with the judgment scale, tie handling, invalid outputs, and abstention handling, and those choices rarely stated. For binary criteria -- the common case in rubric-based evaluation, where each criterion is graded MET or UNMET -- most of the reported numbers are redundant: Pearson's $r$, Spearman's $ρ$, Kendall's $τ_b$, the phi coefficient $φ$, and the Matthews Correlation Coefficient all reduce to a single number on non-degenerate binary data, so reporting several of them only creates an illusion of corroborating evidence. Cohen's $κ$ is the one agreement coefficient that adds information: it shares $φ$'s numerator but normalizes differently, and the gap between them measures how far the judge's positive-label rate has drifted from the human's. We then trace what changes when a judge may abstain with a CANNOT_ASSESS verdict: the three common ways of handling abstentions are not interchangeable preprocessing choices but answer different questions, and they break the binary equivalences. The same equivalences reappear, up to a negligible finite-sample correction, for multi-judge ensembles scored with Fleiss' $κ$ or Krippendorff's $α$. We close with a reporting checklist that names the judgment scale, the abstention and tie handling mode, coverage, the confusion matrix, and the aggregation level alongside any scalar agreement coefficient.