Much of the focus in RL today is on evaluation design: building meaningful evals that serve simultaneously as benchmarks and as well-defined reward signals for post-training. Yet, many real-world tasks are governed by subjective, procedural, and domain-specific requirements that are difficult to encode as exact-match targets or open-ended preference judgments frequently used in RL pipelines today. In this work, we present AsymmetryZero, a framework for operationalizing human expert preferences as semantic evals. AsymmetryZero represents each task as a stable evaluation contract that makes grading criteria explicit: what is being graded, how each criterion is judged, and how criterion-level decisions are aggregated into a task outcome. The same contract can be executed using Inspect for model-only evaluations, as well as the Harbor Framework for agentic evaluations, enabling comparable scores and shared audit artifacts across both settings. We argue that the central challenge in post-training today is the faithful encoding of expert requirements into the evaluation itself. To that end, we present a study using Harbor that holds task contracts fixed and compares a five-model frontier jury against a five-model compact jury across four frontier-class solvers (Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5.4, Grok-4.20, Gemini-3.1-Pro). We find that criterion-level frontier-vs-compact agreement ranges from $75.9\%$ to $89.6\%$ (strict common-subset agreement: $77.8\%$ to $92.1\%$), while compact juries exhibit substantially higher internal dissent (3--2 split rate $28.7\%$--$32.4\%$) than frontier juries ($6.1\%$--$11.5\%$). Verifier traces further show that compact juries reduce per-criterion judging cost to roughly $4.2\%$--$5.6\%$ of frontier and latency to roughly $21.7\%$--$27.1\%$, even as aggregated task-level outcomes often remain comparatively stable.