LLM-as-judge frameworks are increasingly used for automatic NLG evaluation, yet their per-instance reliability remains poorly understood. We present a two-pronged diagnostic toolkit applied to SummEval:
(1) a transitivity analysis that reveals widespread per-input inconsistency masked by low aggregate violation rates (
ρˉ=0.8-
4.1%), with
33-
67% of documents exhibiting at least one directed 3-cycle; and
(2) split conformal prediction sets over 1-5 Likert scores providing theoretically-guaranteed
≥(1−α) coverage, with set width serving as a per-instance reliability indicator (
rs=+0.576,
N=1,918,
p<10−100, pooled across all judges). Critically, prediction set width shows consistent cross-judge agreement (
rˉ=0.32-
0.38), demonstrating it captures document-level difficulty rather than judge-specific noise. Across four judges and four criteria, both diagnostics converge: criterion matters more than judge, with relevance judged most reliably (avg. set size
≈3.0) and coherence moderately so (avg. set size
≈3.9), while fluency and consistency remain unreliable (avg. set size
≈4.9). We release all code, prompts, and cached results.