It's an interesting innovation. I'm not saying it's a bad idea; I like how it streamlines the process. I think you are, however, somewhat more likely to have a situation where judges A, B, C, D, and E all consider a map, and judge A gives it a
. Then Judges B and C invest time into testing it for a few weeks, then Judge F finally gets around to looking at it and decides it's not worth testing, so he throws a
into the pit and it's over. Under a two-stage process, B and C do not invest the time until F has already been heard. Or outvoted, for the purpose of advancing to the testing stage.
On the other hand, that scenario is probably not going to come up very often. And you will be able to turn around maps much faster, apparently, because you have less voting to do. And if Judge B does not like it when Judge F torpedoes a map he's been testing, then next time Judge B could just send a PM or a tag to @Judge F, and tickle a vote out of him, and problem solved.
I'm just musing about your process, not trying to be critical.