Too many "rounding errors" adding up seems like a reasonable justification for not allowing even seemingly small sources of additional inconsistency. Slippery slope and all that.
Also, just because the other potential sources of bias you brought up exist doesn't mean new ones should be let into the process. I wouldn't be against solutions to remove the ones you mentioned. But I don't think you'd be entirely convinced that just allowing cartoon dragons would decrease bias by making people more empathetic.
Do you know for a fact that those rounding errors add up, or do they cancel out? I feel like all this bikeshedding is just helping to draw the attention off the more significant and well known biases.
Do you know for a fact that the rounding errors cancel out perfectly? Probably not.
Trying to make this about "more significant and well known biases" when all I'm arguing for is not introducing additional biases is a logical fallacy. And allowing cartoon watermarks in court documents would not help with the "more significant and well known biases" that you're more concerned about, anyway, so I have to wonder why you feel strongly enough that this should be allowed that you'd write off opposition as "bikeshedding."
Also, just because the other potential sources of bias you brought up exist doesn't mean new ones should be let into the process. I wouldn't be against solutions to remove the ones you mentioned. But I don't think you'd be entirely convinced that just allowing cartoon dragons would decrease bias by making people more empathetic.