The big problem is who the Court appoints as Chair. Appoint a biologist (old style) and they will rule on the biology of the fish and which arguments-or middle ground-are most persuasive biologically.

Appoint a statistician and they will look at the models, statistics, and non-biological aspects; often splitting the difference because they knew numbers, not fish.

Also, in my experience the agency could sabotage the argument easily. Say the State point is 1 and Tribal is 100. If the FAB spilt the difference, you'd end up around 50. But of you knew that the Chair was going to split the difference, if you were directed to start the FAB at 50 the result would come down around 75.