Abstract
Deploying an LLM judge panel spends human labels on fitting a calibrator, constructing candidate judge paths, and validating which candidate to deploy. We study when finite labels should support a low-dimensional stacker or reliability model, and when an unrestricted joint output table is worth its cell-count and unseen-pattern cost. We cast this as a finite-calibration regime map and instantiate it as Finite-Calibration Panel Selection (FCPS), a validation selector over judge path, deployed panel size, and aggregator family with support diagnostics. Across RewardBench, LLMBar, SummEval, and Arena100K with a seven-judge pool, scalar/reliability aggregation has lower MSE than unrestricted joint-table calibration in 16 of 20 real dataset--budget cells by point estimate, while paired 95% intervals exclude zero in 11 cells; richer backoff/shrinkage tables narrow some gaps while preserving the finite-support bottleneck. Controlled calibration-growth data show the opposite regime: when labels contain a six-way interaction, the selected table grows to the interaction-bearing prefix and its MSE falls from 0.224 to 0.061 once unseen mass vanishes. The practical deployment question is whether the next judge's information is estimable under the available human labels.