Large language models are increasingly used as automated evaluators in research and enterprise settings, a practice known as LLM-as-a-judge. While prior work has examined accuracy, bias, and alignment with human preferences, far less attention has been given to how consistently LLMs assign numerical scores, an important concern for many production workflows. This study systematically evaluates scoring stability across five commonly used models, GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, Gemini-2.5-Flash, Claude-Haiku-4.5, and Claude-Sonnet-4.5, two temperature settings, and real enterprise question-answer pairs drawn from a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system. We address three questions: how stable a model's scores are across repeated runs, how differently models score identical inputs, and how temperature affects scoring consistency. Temperature controls the determinism of an LLM's output. Despite expectations of stability at temperature=0, we observe substantial variability across models, with completeness scoring showing the largest fluctuations. Cross-model comparisons reveal systematic differences in strictness and interpretive style, leading to divergent ratings for the same answers. Lower temperatures improve stability for some models, notably GPT-4o and Gemini, but have limited or inconsistent effects for Anthropic models. These findings have important implications for enterprise pipelines that rely on LLM-generated scores for routing, triage, gating, or quality control. Identical inputs can receive different scores depending on model, family, or temperature, raising concerns around fairness, reproducibility, and operational reliability. Our results highlight the need for monitoring, robust parsing, and hybrid human-LLM evaluation strategies to ensure dependable use of LLM-as-a-judge in production environments.