We have a series of working groups that are part of the Clingen Consortium that are looking at this exact question. You might think initially that simply rigorously applying the ACMG guidelines for assessing evidence for gene and variant pathogenicity would in fact improve concordance. However, Birgit Funke, Colleen Caleshu and colleagues found that using the “standardized” ACMG criteria in a more formal manner decreased rather than increased concordance among curators when assessing the pathogenicity of variants implicated in cardiomyopathy. Interestingly, allowing the curators to compare notes increased this concordance substantially. While this could be the result of “group think” rather than consensus building (only a longitudinal study could answer that) Colleen and others have come to favor the idea of disease, gene, or even model specific guidelines for the assessment of scientific evidence in favor of variant causality. For more, see our paper from a few years back (Nature508, 469–476) or Clingen (https://www.clinicalgenome.org/site/assets/files/2757/funke_clingencardio.pdf)