Primary results
B leads under the simplest count, but the result changes when people are weighted equally. The pilot therefore does not name a winner.
The counts below are exact facts about these saved ratings. Turning them into a ranking takes a counting rule. The first rule counts every completed rating once, so people who finished more claims have more influence. It describes this pilot, not experts in general.
The pilot saved 34 completed claim ratings from 5 raters. Three raters finished all ten claims.
Thirty-four is the number of completed claim ratings, not people. Each rating includes one MOST and one LEAST choice.
A received 7 MOST and 7 LEAST choices; B received 14 and 8; C received 5 and 8; D received 8 and 11.
When each completed claim rating counts once, this pilot gives B > A > C=D.
This describes these saved ratings only. The counting rule was chosen after collection and does not describe experts in general.
The five raters did not contribute the same amount of data.
Three raters finished all ten claims. The other two completed four claims between them. Choosing a counting rule therefore means choosing how much influence complete and partial raters receive. Even the three complete raters do not share one ranking.
Weighting sensitivities do not all agree, and the disagreement is the point.
Using only the three raters who finished all ten claims gives B > A > C > D.
Giving each rater the same total weight changes the ranking to D > A > B > C.
Under this rule, a rater who completed one claim gets the same total weight as a rater who completed ten.
Removing one rater at a time changes the leader: B leads in four checks and D in one.
Removing R08 puts D first. The other four checks leave B first.
Two of the three complete raters put D in the bottom half. One put D first, so the missing-step check is only partial.
Bottom half means third or fourth after adding MOST choices and subtracting LEAST choices within each rater.
R05 completed all ten claims, chose D as MOST four times and LEAST once, and marked all ten MOST choices as specific.
The tags make specificity a useful clue. They do not prove why R05 made the choices or justify removing the record.
The evidence report shows every required counting view and keeps the failed position check visible.
This checks whether the report is complete. It does not fix the study design or the rater disagreement.