I think you should have read the article first, at minimum the subheader

> Discounting the opinions of LLM judges with highly correlated outputs ensures that panels of judges reflect a true diversity of perspectives.

The quoted sentence still leads to the same answer: no.

Because there's no "discounting of opinions". They are running a separate LLM to "score" opinions. And the result is still "no" regardless of "lineages" or "sources".

And the end of the article leads me to believe that the entire article and approach is LLM-induced garbage:

--- start quote ---

<Following a list of LLM-like suggestions>

When LLM judges agree, we should ask why. Sometimes agreement is independent evidence. Sometimes it is a shared blind spot. A good aggregation method should be able to tell the difference.

--- end quote ---