Services that operate in Korean often write their evaluation rubrics in Korean and hand them to an LLM judge. We test whether a judge's verdict depends on the language of the rubric and on how a rubric item is phrased. We write 12 criteria for support dialogues in four clause structures (affirmative, negated, conditional, exception) such that two pairs of structures have the same meaning, and we give each item in Korean and in English. Six low-cost models from three providers, plus one reference model, judge 60 translated ESConv dialogues and 144 constructed boundary cases under every combination (51,744 requests across the seven models). The analysis plan was fixed and committed before data collection. Cross-provider agreement is lower with Korean rubrics than with English rubrics (Cohen's kappa 0.687 vs. 0.745; difference -0.058, 95% CI [-0.072,-0.045]). Disagreement concentrates in negated, conditional, and exception items (odds ratio 5.6 relative to affirmative items). A single model changes its verdict between two items with the same meaning in 11-15% of cases. Two hypotheses are not supported: models from the same provider do not agree more than models from different providers, and adding paired examples does not reduce the language gap. We measure consistency only; no human labels are used, and all materials were drafted by an LLM.
Practitioners who compare systems with an LLM judge and have no human labels often check a conclusion by repeating it with a judge from another provider. We test how far that check can be trusted. In a preregistered study (with a disclosed post-registration reduction of the judge set), five judge models from three providers re-judged 4,000 Chatbot Arena battles (nine systems, 33 system pairs) that carry human votes, each in both response orders. Agreement with the human vote was low at the verdict level (median Cohen's kappa = 0.22), and system rankings did not survive a change of judge: Kendall's tau with the human ranking ranged from 0.17 to 0.89 (median 0.67), so the preregistered hypothesis that rankings remain stable was not supported. Conclusions replicated by two low-cost judges from different providers matched the human conclusion more often than single-judge conclusions (+0.10 precision), but the gain came from filtering out one poorly aligned judge, and replication involving that judge left a conclusion for only 35% of comparisons. Judges that agreed with humans reached a stable conclusion with no more verdicts than human votes required; the others failed to converge on 26-70% of system pairs at the sample sizes tested (up to 100 verdicts per pair). Disagreements with the human vote co-occurred across judges far more often than independence predicts, although a single human vote per battle cannot separate shared judge bias from voter noise.