coppro wrote: > - Otherwise, the Justiciar (or, failing that, the CotC) shall choose a > judgment such that if every undecided panelist chose that judgment, no > other judgment would have been chosen more often (so in the above > instance, e could pick REMAND or REASSIGN)
Consider the actual recent example of (AFFIRM, AFFIRM, REASSIGN, REASSIGN, no opinion). IMO, REMAND and REASSIGN should always be available as tiebreaking options, along with any other decision meeting your criterion above (e.g. in the recent example, the Justiciar could have picked AFFIRM, REMAND or REASSIGN).
