Different judges, doctors, loan officers, and patent examiners make different decisions, generating costly uncertainty over ultimate outcomes. In this paper, I use multiple-stage decision-making institutions to identify nonparametric bounds on disagreement between decision-makers. I bound disagreement to at least 17% of all Canadian refugee appeals, 150% larger than the estimate using existing methods and substantial relative to an average approval rate of 14%. I aggregate disagreement into judge-specific measures of quality, and find that quality improves with experience, declines with workload, and is higher for judges appointed under a nonpartisan regime. Finally, I adopt my method to test and reject the typical examiner-assignment monotonicity assumption.

More on this topic

BFI Working Paper·Jun 23, 2026

Misleading Estimates from Nonlinear Models with a Binary Outcome

Brian Curran, Bruce Meyer, and Derek Wu
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·Jun 15, 2026

Don’t Give Up on Lab Experiments: Why the Field Still Needs the Lab

John List
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·May 5, 2026

Retrospective Versus Prospective Meritocracy

Steven Durlauf
Topics: Uncategorized