It's worse than that. The entire notion of an independent arbiter is deceptive at best, because the decision making will always come down to how the questions are framed.

The claim here is that an automated process backed with enough data and computational power can distill any of the world's most intractable conflicts and come up with a compromise immune to "toxicity" and human bad-faith. I'd submit that in any conflict in which at least one actor is acting in bad faith to begin with, in the absence of an overriding ethical framework, any such compromise would result in a worse outcome than making a decision that one side was right and the other wrong. It's the compromise between hens and wolves.

In CGT, there is no third party arbitrator, no admin, the resolution is reached player to player. thx for response

If/since the universe of human bad faith is finite, it does seem possible (and useful) to detect all such forms in transactions that are on the record.

This won't solve out-of-band corruption and might indeed increase its value, and hence increase the value of participating in a corruption network.

gosh darn unintended consequences...

You're really way out of left field. You are welcome to a live demonstration of how CGT works.

in CGT, humans make the final decisions, it is a game designed for humans first, AI just came later

this is a so-often overlooked point.

No, that is a misunderstanding. No third party or no AI, or AI training data, is used to arrive at a consensus decision, humans have over-ride in the system.