This is Part 2 of a 4-part series introducing the AI Agents built into Sessionboard. Over the next two weeks, we're introducing one agent at a time — what it does, what it replaces, and why it matters. On June 23, we're showing all of them live in a platform walkthrough. Save your spot →

Program committees don't have a judgment problem. They have a volume problem.

Five reviewers. Five hundred submissions. Three weeks. Everyone has a different interpretation of the criteria, a different pace, and a different threshold for what counts as "strong." By the time the committee meets, half the members haven't finished their assigned stack, the scoring is inconsistent, and the final decisions are shaped more by reviewer fatigue than by submission quality.

The abstracts that deserved a closer look get buried. The ones that happened to land in front of the right reviewer at the right time survive. That's not a review process. That's a lottery with extra steps.

What it does

The Reviewer Agent scores and ranks every submission against the criteria your team defines — relevance, originality, clarity, speaker track record, track alignment — the moment each abstract arrives. No waiting for the review window to close. No batching. Every submission is evaluated with the same rubric, the same weighting, and the same consistency, whether it's the first one or the five-hundredth.

The output isn't a score in a vacuum. Each submission comes with a rationale: why it ranked where it did, which criteria it scored high on, and where it fell short. The committee doesn't just see a number — they see the reasoning.

What the committee gets

A shortlist, not a pile.

Instead of opening 500 abstracts and starting from zero, the committee receives a ranked list with the top-scoring submissions surfaced, the competitive middle band flagged for closer review, and the below-threshold submissions deprioritized. The committee's time goes where it matters most: the edge cases, the strategic programming decisions, and the submissions where human context adds something the rubric can't capture.

AI and human scores stay separate. The committee sees both sides by side — and the most productive conversations happen where the two diverge. A submission that the AI ranked low but a reviewer ranked high tells you something interesting about what the program actually values beyond the rubric.

Why this matters

The manual review process doesn't just take time — it introduces inconsistency. Reviewer A scores generously on Monday evening. Reviewer B is harsher after processing twenty abstracts in a row. Reviewer C skips half their assigned stack and rushes through the rest before the deadline. The AI doesn't have favorites, doesn't get tired, and doesn't anchor on the first few submissions it reads.

At 200 submissions, the time savings are real. At 500+, they're transformational. Weeks of committee time compress to days. And the committee's energy goes toward the decisions that actually need their expertise — not the triage that was consuming it.

See it live

Next in the series: the Editor Agent — session content standardized and polished within minutes of a session ending.

We're walking through the Reviewer Agent — and the full AI Agent suite — in a live demo on June 23. No slides. No sales pitch. Just the platform, running in real time.

‍

Save your spot →

‍

Prefer a session with your team directly?

‍

Book a walkthrough →