Evaluation not based on quality criteria and indicators runs the major risk of being tainted by the personal opinions of evaluators, thus undermining their objectivity. This evaluation, whether diagnostic, formative, summative, certification-based, ipsative, normative, criterion-referenced, internal, external, continuous, ex-ante, mid-term, ex-post, etc., is conducted by evaluators whose use of concrete indicators objectifies their evaluative activity. Despite the many writings on evaluation practice, doxology, and docimastics, there is a gap in the scientific literature regarding the clear link between the way in which evaluation is conducted and the objective elements that can attest to its relevance and quality, both in the context of learning assessment and in the context of the evaluation of public educational policies around projects or programs. The results of this study have highlighted the mediating effect of the motivation and satisfaction of the actors regarding the results of the evaluation. A significant link is observed between the results of the evaluation carried out objectively, the satisfaction of the evaluators and those evaluated as well as their motivation. The necessity of the fundamental link between what is evaluated and the objective criteria to judge the effectiveness and relevance of the object evaluated, highlights the requirement for evaluators and educational institutions to adopt rigorous bottom-up and top-down approaches to guarantee the objectivity of the evaluation process. This article opens a debate on the impact of the results of high-percentage deliberation juries on the real performance of learners, the satisfaction of evaluators and those being evaluated as well as that of the educational institution.