arXiv:2611.06272v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: There are often multiple valid visualizations, spanning different chart types, visual encodings, and aesthetic choices, that can all support a user's goal of analyzing a dataset. Determining which of these candidate visualizations is most appropriate, however, remains challenging. Prior work has leveraged expert-curated taxonomies to guide visualization design and subsequent quality evaluation, a practical evaluation model must also account for human-centric factors. Latest visualization tools integrate Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate and refine visualizations, using LLM-as-a-judge to provide design feedback. Without a deeper understanding of whether, and in what ways, human and LLM perceptions of visualizations align, there is a real risk of deploying low-quality agents that do not reflect human judgment. We study this question through a pilot experiment - we formulate the problem as a preference task over curated chart pairs and compare the judgments of state-of-the-art vision models with those of a panel of human annotators. We establish a cautionary tale: such judges risk filtering out informative, compelling displays. We find that frontier models collapse human subjectivity, a rich signal that reveals contrasting design choices, into near-deterministic verdicts.