How are issues judged?
Every finding is assessed in two layers. Community judging runs first. Then two Lead Judges assess every finding independently, review each other's calls and escalate any disagreement, so no finding rests on a single opinion before escalations.
The first layer: community judging
Community judging runs before the Lead Judges look at anything. Submissions are assessed by the people competing in the same contest, on the same code, which is the fastest way to separate a real issue from a restatement of a known one.
The second layer: Dual Judging
Two Lead Judges then assess every finding independently. They review each other's calls, and any disagreement is escalated rather than settled quietly by whoever looked first.
That is the point of the second layer. A single judge, however experienced, is a single point of failure on severity: the difference between a medium and a high is the difference between a fix that ships before launch and one that waits.
Why two layers rather than one
Researchers earn rewards for verified, exploitable findings, judged on impact. That makes judging the mechanism that decides what gets paid, so it carries real weight for both sides: a protocol team relying on the severity attached to a finding, and a researcher relying on the call being made consistently.
Two independent assessments, with escalation when they differ, is how that call stops depending on which judge happened to pick up the submission.
What reaches your team
Findings ship with reproduction steps, severity, and a remediation path: a plan, not a wall of comments. What arrives has already passed both layers.
Scope it with us.
Book a live walkthrough of the platform. We will answer anything your team needs before getting to work.