judgesthrough

Judgesthrough is a procedural framework for arriving at judgments by traversing a structured sequence of evidentiary and normative steps. It emphasizes explicit justification at each stage and seeks to produce auditable conclusions. While not tied to a single discipline, judgesthrough is frequently described in contexts such as legal technology, policy analysis, and explainable artificial intelligence.

In a typical judgesthrough workflow, a problem is framed, relevant data and claims are collected, and a set of evaluative criteria is defined. Reasoning proceeds through discrete judgments against each criterion, with each judgment supported by premises, sources, and, if applicable, probabilistic or logical justifications. Conflicting evidence is reconciled through predefined rules or through argumentation, and a final verdict is issued with an explicit rationale and an audit trail.

The approach supports transparent decision-making, compliance auditing, and reproducibility. It is used in legal tech for case analysis, in risk assessment frameworks, in editorial fact-checking, and in AI systems that require explainability or post-hoc justification of their outputs.

Judgesthrough is a neologism formed from judge and through, signaling moving through judgment steps. The term emerged in discussions on explainable decision processes in the 2010s and 2020s; it is not a formally standardized framework, and its exact definition varies by domain.

Critics note that formalizing each step can increase complexity and cognitive load, potentially slowing decisions. Others warn that rigid structures may overlook intuitive or context-specific factors. Proponents argue that the traceability and accountability provided by judgesthrough outweigh these costs in sensitive domains.