id. at 717 (Aff. of Cary Williams, dated Aug. 22, 2002) (noting that “overall” the panel “felt that Mr. Hager was the top choice”). Ms. Conroy also points to discrepancies in the panel members’ use of the KSAs to evaluate the candidates. According to their testimony, two panel members recalled that the KSAs pertaining to leadership were given more weight; one panel member recalled that all five KSAs were equally weighted; and one panel member could not recall any specific weighting. We think these discrepancies are minor and are insufficient to demonstrate pretext. In the first place, we are inclined to discount the persuasiveness of such evidence. Notably, the panel members were not the ultimate decisionmakers. See Lucas v. Dover Corp., Norris Div., 857 F.2d 1397, 1402 (10th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Second, nothing about the panel’s evaluation
holding that the plaintiff did not present evidence of retaliation and therefore the plaintiff failed to allege facts that would allow a rational jury to conclude that the employers reasons for termination were pretextual holding that trial judges determination  that the prosecutors use of peremptory challenges to strike all four africanamerican venirepersons for lack of education and business experience was not pretextual  was not clearly erroneous holding that allowing moderate use of the resources on the property was not inconsistent with exclusive use holding that without any meaningful connection in either time or topic to the employment decision the alleged comments and actions cannot give rise to an inference that the defendants explanation for that decision is pretextual holding that subordinates use of inconsistent criteria did not show that the ultimate decisionmakers decision was pretextual