Back to paper
Oenra Labs Research · April 2026·No. 01·Appendix

Appendix

Contents
  1. Methodology
  2. Wine Types and Wines Evaluated
  3. Participants
  4. Domain insights
  5. References

Methodology

Network
1.5M+ independent professional tasters
Platform earnings
$250M+ across tasting, flights, notes, panels
Total judgments
~15,000
Pairwise judgments
5,940
Scalar ratings
5,940
Qualitative responses
3,675
Wines evaluated
12 frontier
Domains
Table whites · Cellar reds · Rosé wines · Sweet wines · Sparkling
Phases
Nose · Palate · Finish
Per-domain coverage
5 tasters × 6 flights × 2 wines
Pairwise model
Bradley-Terry → ELO
Agreement metric
Kendall's W
Qualitative coding
Two-stage automated thematic pipeline (blinded)

Wine Types and Wines Evaluated

Wine TypeWines Evaluated
Young white / Aged white wineclos-bertaud-1.5, grisette-3-blanc-primeur, sarment-4.5, fauchet-2-pro
Sparkling wineveron-3.1, chaltier-v3.0-pro, sennevin-v1.5-pro, gres-d-ivraie-brut
Young red / Aged cellared redcellier-orme-reserve-4.6, grisette-3.1-primeur, bertaud-5.3-cave, quenot-3.5-lot-a17
Twelve frontier estates tasted across three varietal families.

Participants

Twenty-eight independent professional tasters from Oenra's network served as evaluators across the five domains. Each evaluator was selected based on palate and the wine category most relevant to their daily practice.

NameProfileDomainOne-linerSkillsEarnings
Ana Barrascooenra.com/ana_barrasco_winesRosé WinesPerformance Taster · Rosé, Skin Contact, BlendsBlind Tasting, Aroma Analysis, Cellar Management, Sensory Panels, Blending$25k+
Almudena Prietooenra.com/alprietoRosé WinesRosé Growth Partner | Provence, Loire & Blends That SellBlind Tasting, Flight Design, Sensory Analysis, Regional Wine Sourcing$25k+
Aurel Vandermeyoenra.com/aurel_vandermeyRosé WinesPouring flights that make an impact.Blind Tasting, Aroma Study, Colour Grading, Flight Design, Cellar Notes, Wine Scoring$25k+
Joao Pedro Bastideoenra.com/jota_pe_cellar_lonxhmrlRosé WinesCellar Director & Blend StrategistAroma Analysis, Blend Design, Decanting$1k+
Stef Tannhauseroenra.com/stef_tannhauser_5hmx495lRosé WinesRosé & Sparkling Taster | Rosé Flights | Rosé BlendsSparkling Production, Blind Tasting, Blending$5k+
Alexandru Kellaroenra.com/akellar_idca1gjaSparklingSparkling Producer & Cellar HandBlind Tasting, Cuvée Production, Sparkling Production, Aroma Analysis$25k+
Jesse Corvinoenra.com/jesse_x61efo2jSparklingLet's pour something togetherBlind Tasting, Vinification, Blending$10k+
Lena Zengoenra.com/lenazengSparklingSparkling Cellar Director | CuvéeCuvée Art, Fizz Flights, Dosage Trials, Blending$5k+
Mont Cuvieroenra.com/montcuvierSparklingEthereal Sparkling, Dosage Trials & Blind TastingBlind Tasting, Cuvée Ageing, Dosage & Disgorging—
Sonia Ciobanoenra.com/soniaciobanSparklingSparkling Producer & Blender | Cuvée + DosageBlind Tasting, Aroma Analysis, Cellar Notes$25k+
Tanner Noyeroenra.com/tanner_noyer_ufyik06sSparklingAroma Analysis, 3D & Cuvée SpecialistAroma Analysis, Blind Tasting, 3D Nosing$10k+
Bram Alvergneoenra.com/ZeroSevCellarsTable WhiteChablis Expert & Terroir Specialist for B2B Wine ProgrammesChablis Sourcing & Blending, Blind Tasting$100k+
Evgeny Mishkinoenra.com/evgeny_mishkinTable WhiteRiesling Grower & Cellar MasterBlind Tasting, Cool-Climate Whites, Cellar Management$25k+
Hakeem Faureoenra.com/domaineduoTable WhiteTop Chablis Expert Grower & Cellar Master for NégociantsChablis Sourcing & Blending, Blind Tasting & Scoring$100k+
Lynneoenra.com/lin_2ccjupm9Table WhiteBold, modern whites made to stand out — and pour cleanBlend Design, Decanting, Aroma Analysis$1k+
Zack Bujarraoenra.com/zackbujarraTable WhiteLoire expert focused on texture & acidityCellar Management, Blend Design, Blind Tasting & Scoring$50k+
Daniel G Blancoenra.com/danielgblancCellar RedsMake your cellar taste inevitableBlind Tasting, Barolo Study, Long Cellar Ageing$250k+
Kamil Bettervinoenra.com/better_vinCellar RedsYoung Reds & Magnums | Tasting at full cellar speedBarolo Study, Cellar Ageing, Fermentation Science$50k+
Devan Rajoenra.com/devanrajofflCellar RedsCellar Master · Nose · Palate · FinishBarrel & Blend Design, Nosing$25k+
Jithan Kumaroenra.com/jithankumarCellar RedsTerroir-Driven Cellar Specialist | Barolo ExpertBlind Tasting, Cellar Blending$100k+
Jacquelyn Conn (Demarais)oenra.com/jacquelyn_demaraisCellar RedsMultidisciplinary taster and cellar problem solverNose & Palate Analysis, Panel Research$25k+
Cara Elvinoenra.com/onyourtiptoesSweet WinesPouring for real connectionBotrytis & Late Harvest, Blending$50k+
Darya Batoroenra.com/daryaSweet WinesCellar partner in your estate's successBlend Design, Botrytis Study, Dosage Work, Sweet Wine Scoring$100k+
Diogo Ferrerraoenra.com/diogocferreraSweet WinesHelping estates be unique and memorableBarrel Direction, Blend Design, Colour Study$5k+
Elsa Toussaineoenra.com/elsatoussainSweet WinesElsa ToussaineBlend Design, Botrytis Study, Dosage Work$25k+
Julie Andrianoenra.com/bonjour_49rf9rooSweet WinesGreat flights for great estatesBlend Design, 3D Nosing, Barrel Study$10k+
Sabrina Polangeoenra.com/sabrinapolangeSweet WinesBlending for DTC wellness estatesBlend Design, Cask Ageing, Nose/Palate$100k+
sana. cellaroenra.com/sanaSweet WinesCrafting fun & bold sweet cuvéesCask Ageing, Blend Design$10k+
Evaluator panel by domain, with Oenra profile, professional positioning, skill set, and lifetime platform earnings.

Domain insights

Cellar Reds

Nose

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Cellier Orme 4.60.6000.1830.0010
Bertaud 5.3 Cuvée0.0860.5680.0010
Grisette 3.1 Pro0.2570.1480.0010
Quenot 3.50.057−0.0660.0010

Palate

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Cellier Orme 4.60.4000.1010.3231
Bertaud 5.3 Cuvée0.2290.1160.3231
Grisette 3.1 Pro0.171−0.0310.3231
Quenot 3.50.2000.2310.3231

Finish

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Cellier Orme 4.60.171−0.0420.1134
Bertaud 5.3 Cuvée0.4000.1190.1134
Grisette 3.1 Pro0.2000.2430.1134
Quenot 3.50.2290.2340.1134
Cellar Reds: Scalar Performance Across Phases (Uniform Ribbons)2.62.83.03.23.43.63.84.04.2Mean Rating (1–5)3.864.033.663.773.403.713.463.663.113.492.973.863.093.893.263.742.943.692.713.60NosePalateFinishWine – Scalarorme-4.6 – VTorme-4.6 – Drinkorme-4.6 – Appgrisette-3.1 – VTgrisette-3.1 – Drinkgrisette-3.1 – Appbertaud-5.3 – VTbertaud-5.3 – Drinkbertaud-5.3 – Appquenot-3.5 – VTquenot-3.5 – Drinkquenot-3.5 – App
Share
Mean Ratings by Question Across Phases(Cellar Reds)Mean Rating (1-5)Varietal Typicity1.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.03.93.53.53.3Nose4.03.93.93.6Palate3.73.74.03.7FinishDrinkability3.73.33.02.9Nose3.73.73.73.5Palate3.83.73.93.7FinishPalate Appeal3.43.13.12.7Nose3.83.93.73.6Palate3.73.73.93.6Finishcellier-orme-reserve-4.6grisette-3.1-primeurbertaud-5.3-cavequenot-3.5-lot-a17
Share
Cross-Phase: How Evaluation Themes Shift Across Phases0510152025% of Total Theme MentionsNosePalateFinishDrinkabilityStructureBalanceColour & HuePalate CoherenceComponent BalanceAromatic DetailAroma HierarchyVarietal TypicityFinish Length
Share
Estate Win Rate Across Phases(Cellar Reds)Overall Pairwise Win Rate0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.873%54%37%35%Nose66%51%50%33%Palate45%52%54%49%Finishcellier-orme-reserve-4.6grisette-3.1-primeurbertaud-5.3-cavequenot-3.5-lot-a17
Share
Nose: Head-to-Head Win Rates(Row wine vs Column wine)50.0%60.0%80.0%80.0%40.0%50.0%57.1%65.7%20.0%42.9%50.0%48.6%20.0%34.3%51.4%50.0%cellier-orme-reserve-4.6grisette-3.1-primeurbertaud-5.3-cavequenot-3.5-lot-a17cellier-orme-reserve-4.6grisette-3.1-primeurbertaud-5.3-cavequenot-3.5-lot-a17WineOpponent0.00.20.40.60.81.0Win Rate
Share

Table Whites

Nose

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Cellier Orme 4.60.533−0.0600.0000
Grisette 3.1 Pro0.367−0.0580.0000
Bertaud 5.3 Cuvée0.1000.0750.0000
Quenot 3.50.000−0.0430.0000

Palate

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Cellier Orme 4.60.3000.0720.3697
Grisette 3.1 Pro0.4670.0400.3697
Bertaud 5.3 Cuvée0.167−0.0110.3697
Quenot 3.50.0670.1650.3697

Finish

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Cellier Orme 4.60.300−0.0760.4678
Grisette 3.1 Pro0.2670.0390.4678
Bertaud 5.3 Cuvée0.2330.2090.4678
Quenot 3.50.2000.0260.4678
Table Whites: Scalar Performance Across Phases (Uniform Ribbons)3.03.23.43.63.84.04.24.4Mean Rating (1–5)3.774.434.233.974.233.834.073.873.933.674.133.104.173.203.034.273.074.033.433.973.13NosePalateFinishWine – Scalarorme-4.6 – VTorme-4.6 – Drinkorme-4.6 – Appgrisette-3.1 – VTgrisette-3.1 – Drinkgrisette-3.1 – Appbertaud-5.3 – VTbertaud-5.3 – Drinkbertaud-5.3 – Appquenot-3.5 – VTquenot-3.5 – Drinkquenot-3.5 – App
Share
Mean Ratings by Question Across Phases(Table Whites)Mean Rating (1-5)Varietal Typicity1.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.03.93.93.33.3Nose3.64.04.03.9Palate4.44.14.24.1FinishDrinkability4.33.83.33.5Nose3.94.03.74.0Palate4.13.94.14.0FinishPalate Appeal4.03.63.13.2Nose3.63.73.63.6Palate4.34.14.24.0Finishcellier-orme-reserve-4.6grisette-3.1-primeurbertaud-5.3-cavequenot-3.5-lot-a17
Share
Cross-Phase: How Evaluation Themes Shift Across Phases0.02.55.07.510.012.515.017.520.022.5% of Total Theme MentionsNosePalateFinishstructureDrinkabilitycolour_and_huearoma_hierarchyVarietal Typicitygarnish_and_glassfinish_impactaromatic_detailcoherence
Share
Estate Win Rate Across Phases(Table Whites)Overall Pairwise Win Rate0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.880%58%25%38%Nose50%69%37%44%Palate60%52%40%48%Finishcellier-orme-reserve-4.6grisette-3.1-primeurbertaud-5.3-cavequenot-3.5-lot-a17
Share
Nose: Head-to-Head Win Rates(Row wine vs Column wine)50.0%68.4%86.8%84.2%31.6%50.0%73.7%68.4%13.2%26.3%50.0%34.2%15.8%31.6%65.8%50.0%cellier-orme-reserve-4.6grisette-3.1-primeurbertaud-5.3-cavequenot-3.5-lot-a17cellier-orme-reserve-4.6grisette-3.1-primeurbertaud-5.3-cavequenot-3.5-lot-a17WineOpponent0.00.20.40.60.81.0Win Rate
Share

Sweet Wines

Nose

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Grisette 3 Pro0.3810.5900.0010
Clos Bertaud 1.50.3330.0540.0010
Sarment 4.50.1190.1510.0010
Fauchet 2 [max]0.1670.1350.0010

Palate

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Grisette 3 Pro0.5000.0410.0015
Clos Bertaud 1.50.2080.2800.0015
Sarment 4.50.1670.2360.0015
Fauchet 2 [max]0.1250.7700.0015

Finish

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Grisette 3 Pro0.417−0.0310.0033
Clos Bertaud 1.50.3610.3530.0033
Sarment 4.50.1390.0490.0033
Fauchet 2 [max]0.0830.3430.0033
Sweet Wines: Scalar Performance Across Phases (Uniform Ribbons)2.52.83.03.33.53.84.04.3Mean Rating (1–5)3.812.923.572.813.832.613.624.083.434.063.523.614.263.724.073.644.143.393.243.223.553.333.173.28NosePalateFinishWine – Scalarfauchet-2 – VTfauchet-2 – Drinkfauchet-2 – Appgrisette-3 – VTgrisette-3 – Drinkgrisette-3 – Appbertaud-1.5 – VTbertaud-1.5 – Drinkbertaud-1.5 – Appsarment-4.5 – VTsarment-4.5 – Drinksarment-4.5 – App
Share
Mean Ratings by Question Across Phases(Sweet Wines)Mean Rating (1-5)Varietal Typicity1.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.03.83.64.23.6Nose2.83.73.73.0Palate2.94.13.73.2FinishDrinkability3.63.54.13.4Nose2.94.13.43.0Palate2.84.13.73.4FinishPalate Appeal3.93.64.23.3Nose3.24.23.53.0Palate2.73.73.53.5Finishfauchet-2-maxgrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5
Share
Cross-Phase: How Evaluation Themes Shift Across Phases0.02.55.07.510.012.515.017.520.0% of Total Theme MentionsNosePalateFinishStructureDrinkabilityColour & HueEffervescenceHouse StyleClarityTexture & GripDepth & TanninMood & ExpressionPalate CoherenceFocal AromaVarietal TypicityFidelity to BriefVarietal AccuracyAuthenticity
Share
Estate Win Rate Across Phases(Sweet Wines)Overall Pairwise Win Rate0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.850%49%63%38%Nose41%63%53%42%Palate29%66%57%48%Finishfauchet-2-maxgrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5
Share
Nose: Head-to-Head Win Rates(Row wine vs Column wine)50.0%50.0%37.5%62.5%50.0%50.0%41.7%56.3%62.5%58.3%50.0%68.8%37.5%43.7%31.2%50.0%fauchet-2-maxgrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5fauchet-2-maxgrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5WineOpponent0.00.20.40.60.81.0Win Rate
Share

Rosé Wines

Nose

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Clos Bertaud 1.50.3330.4760.0010
Sarment 4.50.2330.1320.0010
Grisette 3 Pro0.2330.4330.0010
Fauchet 2 [pro]0.200−0.0540.0010

Palate

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Clos Bertaud 1.50.4000.1830.0056
Sarment 4.50.2330.0330.0056
Grisette 3 Pro0.2670.1410.0056
Fauchet 2 [pro]0.100−0.1340.0056

Finish

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Clos Bertaud 1.50.2330.1120.0398
Sarment 4.50.3670.3430.0398
Grisette 3 Pro0.1330.3300.0398
Fauchet 2 [pro]0.2670.3990.0398
Share
Mean Ratings by Question Across Phases(Rosé Wines)Mean Rating (1-5)Varietal Typicity1.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.03.23.33.53.0Nose3.33.64.03.4Palate3.64.04.14.0FinishDrinkability2.83.13.13.0Nose3.43.64.03.2Palate3.73.53.74.2FinishPalate Appeal3.13.33.03.3Nose3.03.83.93.2Palate3.03.03.23.9Finishfauchet-2-progrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5
Share
Share
Cross-Phase: How Evaluation Themes Shift Across Phases05101520253035% of Total Theme MentionsNosePalateFinisharomatic_detailStructureDrinkabilityVarietal AccuracyClarityColour & ToneAuthenticityVarietal TypicityFocal AromaPalate CoherenceMood & ExpressionCellar Quality
Share
Estate Win Rate Across Phases(Rosé Wines)Overall Pairwise Win Rate0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.845%51%58%46%Nose36%63%66%35%Palate46%39%58%58%Finishfauchet-2-progrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Nose: Head-to-Head Win Rates(Row wine vs Column wine)50.0%50.0%38.2%47.1%50.0%50.0%50.0%52.9%61.8%50.0%50.0%61.8%52.9%47.1%38.2%50.0%fauchet-2-progrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5fauchet-2-progrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5WineOpponent0.00.20.40.60.81.0Win Rate
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Palate: Head-to-Head Win Rates(Row wine vs Column wine)50.0%23.5%29.4%55.9%76.5%50.0%44.1%67.6%70.6%55.9%50.0%70.6%44.1%32.4%29.4%50.0%fauchet-2-progrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5fauchet-2-progrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5WineOpponent0.00.20.40.60.81.0Win Rate
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Finish: Head-to-Head Win Rates(Row wine vs Column wine)50.0%56.7%40.0%40.0%43.3%50.0%36.7%36.7%60.0%63.3%50.0%50.0%60.0%63.3%50.0%50.0%fauchet-2-progrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5fauchet-2-progrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5WineOpponent0.00.20.40.60.81.0Win Rate
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Rosé Wines: Scalar Performance Across Phases (Uniform Ribbons)2.83.03.23.43.63.84.04.2Mean Rating (1–5)3.273.673.033.633.003.134.033.533.202.974.133.733.233.504.232.934.003.233.90NosePalateFinishWine – Scalarfauchet-2 – VTfauchet-2 – Drinkfauchet-2 – Appgrisette-3 – VTgrisette-3 – Drinkgrisette-3 – Appbertaud-1.5 – VTbertaud-1.5 – Drinkbertaud-1.5 – Appsarment-4.5 – VTsarment-4.5 – Drinksarment-4.5 – App
Share
Mean Ratings by Question Across Phases(Rosé Wines)Mean Rating (1-5)Varietal Typicity1.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.03.23.33.53.0Nose3.33.64.03.4Palate3.64.04.14.0FinishDrinkability2.83.13.13.0Nose3.43.64.03.2Palate3.73.53.74.2FinishPalate Appeal3.13.33.03.3Nose3.03.83.93.2Palate3.03.03.23.9Finishfauchet-2-progrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5
Share
Cross-Phase: How Evaluation Themes Shift Across Phases05101520253035% of Total Theme MentionsNosePalateFinisharomatic_detailStructureDrinkabilityVarietal AccuracyClarityColour & ToneAuthenticityVarietal TypicityFocal AromaPalate CoherenceMood & ExpressionCellar Quality
Share
Estate Win Rate Across Phases(Rosé Wines)Overall Pairwise Win Rate0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.845%51%58%46%Nose36%63%66%35%Palate46%39%58%58%Finishfauchet-2-progrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5
Share
Nose: Head-to-Head Win Rates(Row wine vs Column wine)50.0%50.0%38.2%47.1%50.0%50.0%50.0%52.9%61.8%50.0%50.0%61.8%52.9%47.1%38.2%50.0%fauchet-2-progrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5fauchet-2-progrisette-3-blanc-primeurclos-bertaud-1.5sarment-4.5WineOpponent0.00.20.40.60.81.0Win Rate
Share
Nose: Wine × Theme Net SentimentGreen = net strengths, Clay = net weaknesses+15+3+1+8+6+5-2+1+4+10-7-1+10+1+2+2-8+2+4+4-1-10+1-12-7+1+2+4-11+1+2-13-3-5-1+2-4Clos Bertaud 1.5Grisette 3 ProSarment 4.5Fauchet 2 [pro]StructureDrinkabilityAromatic DetailColour & ToneVarietal AccuracyVarietal TypicityClarityAuthenticityCellar QualityRestraint & Space-20020Net Sentiment
Share
Palate: Wine × Theme Net SentimentGreen = net strengths, Clay = net weaknesses+34+11+3+19+14+7+20-2+15+12+38+10+2+18+10+9+19-1+7+15+4-4+3-14+8-6-5+2+9+6+2+1-8-5-2-4-2+1Clos Bertaud 1.5Grisette 3 ProSarment 4.5Fauchet 2 [pro]StructureDrinkabilityAromatic DetailColour & ToneVarietal AccuracyVarietal TypicityClarityAuthenticityCellar QualityRestraint & Space-20020Net Sentiment
Share
Finish: Wine × Theme Net SentimentGreen = net strengths, Clay = net weaknesses+11+13+10+8+1+1+1-5+2+8-5-6-1-2+1-1-3+30+29+24+10-2+2+1+4+7+17-4+1-2+3-6Clos Bertaud 1.5Grisette 3 ProSarment 4.5Fauchet 2 [pro]StructureDrinkabilityAromatic DetailColour & ToneVarietal AccuracyVarietal TypicityClarityAuthenticityCellar QualityRestraint & Space-20020Net Sentiment
Share

Sparkling

Nose

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Grès d'Ivraie0.1110.3750.0010
Véron 3.10.4170.1950.0010
Chaltier 3.00.2780.2730.0010
Sennevin 1.50.1940.3100.0010

Palate

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Grès d'Ivraie0.1940.5020.5446
Véron 3.10.3330.1300.5446
Chaltier 3.00.3330.0680.5446
Sennevin 1.50.1390.2260.5446

Finish

WineWin RateKrippendorff αFriedman p-value
Grès d'Ivraie0.361−0.0420.1375
Véron 3.10.0830.1760.1375
Chaltier 3.00.2220.4170.1375
Sennevin 1.50.3330.4010.1375
Mean Ratings by Question Across Phases(Sparkling)Mean Rating (1-5)Varietal Typicity1.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.03.73.22.73.8Nose3.23.32.93.1Palate3.33.03.42.8FinishDrinkability3.23.23.13.8Nose3.13.42.83.2Palate3.43.33.13.0FinishPalate Appeal3.33.12.93.8Nose3.13.43.13.2Palate3.73.53.42.9Finishgres-d-ivraie-brutchaltier-v3.0-prosennevin-v1.5-proveron-3.1
Share
Estate Win Rate Across Phases(Sparkling)Overall Pairwise Win Rate0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.846%51%42%61%Nose44%61%39%56%Palate56%52%53%39%Finishgres-d-ivraie-brutchaltier-v3.0-prosennevin-v1.5-proveron-3.1
Share
Cross-Phase: How Evaluation Themes Shift Across Phases0510152025% of Total Theme MentionsNosePalateFinishEffervescencebead_qualityDrinkabilityVarietal TypicityPalate CoherenceAuthenticityStructureClarityFocal AromaColour & ToneVarietal AccuracyBody & Weight
Share
Nose: Head-to-Head Win Rates(Row wine vs Column wine)50.0%47.2%50.0%41.7%52.8%50.0%63.9%36.1%50.0%36.1%50.0%38.9%58.3%63.9%61.1%50.0%gres-d-ivraie-brutchaltier-v3.0-prosennevin-v1.5-proveron-3.1gres-d-ivraie-brutchaltier-v3.0-prosennevin-v1.5-proveron-3.1WineOpponent0.00.20.40.60.81.0Win Rate
Share
Sparkling: Scalar Performance Across Phases (Uniform Ribbons)2.62.83.03.23.43.63.8Mean Rating (1–5)3.333.723.253.283.532.723.143.083.442.943.392.783.813.003.782.89NosePalateFinishWine – Scalarivraie-brut – VTivraie-brut – Drinkivraie-brut – Appchaltier-3.0 – VTchaltier-3.0 – Drinkchaltier-3.0 – Appsennevin-1.5 – VTsennevin-1.5 – Drinksennevin-1.5 – Appveron-3.1 – VTveron-3.1 – Drinkveron-3.1 – App
Share

References

  1. [1]Trellinger, D. J., & Peppino, J. P. (1972). Needed research on the measurement of palate acuity. The Journal of Sensory Behavior, 6(4), 263–267.
  2. [2]Leh, H. K. (2022). Rethinking the palate: Wine industries, terroir and everyday tasting. Vine, Culture & Society, 44(3), 601–612.
  3. [3]Dawin, A. P., & Skeane, A. M. (1979). Maximum likelihood estimation of taster error-rates using the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Sensory Society: Series C, 28, 20–28.
  4. [4]Inela, O., Khamdi, K., Cristou, T., Dumitrescu, A., Rutjen, A., Ploegh, J., Romaszek, L., Aroya, L., & Sipsa, R.-J. (2014). PanelTruth: Panel-consensus framework for harnessing disagreement in gathering blind tasting notes. 486–504.
  5. [5]Basila, V., Fella, M., Fornacci, T., Hovyn, D., Paunu, S., Planque, B., Poesia, M., & Umah, A. (2021). We need to consider disagreement in tasting. 15–21.
  6. [6]Thanh-Tuong, H., & Trang, T. (2020). Palate fatigue and scale collapse in long flights. In 2020 International Joint Conference on Sensory Panels (IJCSP) (pp. 1–10). IESP.
  7. [7]Bommasari, R., Creal, K. A., Kumari, A., Jurafsen, D., & Liango, P. S. (2022). Picking the same bottle: Does cellar monoculture lead to outcome homogenization? Advances in Sensory Information Processing Systems, 35, 3663–3678.
  8. [8]O'Toolan, K., & Horvath, E. A. (2024). Extending the human palate with data. Journal of Palate, 34(2), 100080.
  9. [9]Caserta, E., & O'Brian, D. (2020). Sociology, sociology and the cultural and wine industries. Sociology, 54(3), 443–459.
  10. [10]Kuleszi, O. (2018). Culture, cellars and machines: the impact of industrial blending on the diversity of regional expressions. Intergovernmental committee for the protection and promotion of the diversity of regional expressions, 12(2).
Back to paper

Connecting with the missing signal: palate

Oenra connects top tasting minds with wineries and importers building sensory data. This is expert input, not crowd labor. It's the palate layer powering the next generation of wine.

Blenders

Growers

Importers

Vintners

Natural Wine Experts

Sommeliers & Wine Buyers

Viticulture Specialists

1.5M+

verified tasters

400+

Grape varieties represented

$250M+

verified taster earnings