Independence has a purpose
A reviewer who inherits the assumption can confirm the mistake. That is why I care about fresh context: give the reviewer the artifact and the criteria, rather than a persuasive account of why the work is already good.
A different model can offer a useful second perspective. Its agreement still does not turn a claim into a fact. The check has to reach the evidence.
Disagreement is useful work
When reviews disagree, neither wins by default. I have to understand what the disagreement is about. A finding that turns out to be invalid should be rejected, rather than quietly creating another round of work.
That distinction matters to me. Rigor includes questioning a check, not just obeying it.
Return to the thing itself
I work through AI systems to implement ideas. I am responsible for directing that work and deciding what I can honestly say about the result.
For a website, that means opening the page and using it. For a research claim, it means tracing the result to its evidence and keeping the limits attached. A convincing summary is a place to begin looking.