On my BJCP tasting exam, there was a Belgian dubbel. Very phenolic, tasted exactly like friggin Carmex. I believe I even used the term "Carmex" on the tasting sheet. As such, I scored it relatively low, in the 20s. It was an otherwise okay dubbel, with the dark fruit flavors, etc., but I just couldn't get past the Carmex. Meanwhile the Master level proctors all loved it, scored it in the 40s, probably claiming that they loved the rich complex phenols. = Carmex. Yuck. Of course as a result of this disagreement, my exam score was severely impacted, and I remain convinced that I was in the right and they were in the wrong. I might only be Certified but I don't care what level they were. I don't want friggin Carmex in any beer that I drink, thank you very much. No way I would have changed my score upwards for that beer. After the exam, I also came to find out that many of the other test-takers agreed with me. If only we could have negotiated with those Master judges, perhaps we could have brought them down. I wonder how many other takers got screwed that day.
I don't know what the point of all this is, except perhaps to say, taste is subjective, and we should all be entitled to our own opinions. I have very deep feelings against trying to force anyone to do otherwise. We can and should compare notes, listen to reason, and adjust scores when appropriate. However we should also respect those who refuse to budge if they feel very strongly one way or the other. I think in those cases, we should just let the scoresheets ride as is, and yes, assume that the higher score is the correct one, in fairness to the entrant.