How should judges adjust their final scores?

Judges should adjust their final scores to achieve consensus among judges because scoring in beer evaluation is intended to be a collaborative process that reflects a collective assessment of the beer rather than individual opinions. By seeking consensus, judges can ensure that the final score accurately represents the overall assessment of the beer’s qualities, addressing aspects such as aroma, appearance, flavor, mouthfeel, and overall impression in a balanced way.

Achieving a consensus allows for a more objective scoring process that minimizes individual biases and subjectivities and fosters consistency across evaluations. It enhances the reliability of the judging process and creates a standard that participants can trust. This approach acknowledges that different judges may have varying viewpoints but encourages discussion and compromise to reach a shared decision.

Adjustments based on personal preferences or subjective feelings would lead to inconsistent results and do not align with the principles of structured evaluation inherent in the BJCP guidelines. Furthermore, judges consulting without consensus may lead to fragmented scores that do not represent a unified standard, compromising the integrity of the judging process.