The decision that stood out to me is keeping the critical checks outside the average. A visit scoring 0.9 that misses a safety check should not read as a near-pass, and the failed-critical flag stops that averaging-away problem in a way a single 0.63 average never could. The split between critical at 82% hit rate and must-ask at 53% tells a much clearer story than the headline score alone.

I also liked that the judge never does the arithmetic. Having GPT-4o mini return a verdict and a quote per check, then calculating the weighted score in plain code, keeps the number auditable, and the clickable score card that scrolls to the quoted Aiko line makes that audit practical. The "does not" finding is a useful warning too: rewording those checks into positive actions the judge can actually find in the transcript seems like the right fix, rather than trusting a model to reliably confirm an absence.