The 7PK paper does not state whether repeatability of mappings is a goal. It probably isn't, since the focus is more on education of developers and automated detection.
For CWE, regardless of the view, the requirements for repeatability are different. Since CWE is intended to facilitate communication of weakness information between diverse communities and tools, repeatability is important - people have to be able to map to the same identifier.
Accordingly, the Research view seeks to achieve repeatability, although strong technical knowledge and an understanding of chains is required. Repeatability has been informally verified in many situations in which two separate CWE team members classified issues the same way. However, there are limits - ambiguous classification can still happen because of perspective issues or incomplete parts of the hierarchy.
In the case of the Development view, it is hoped that the large number of navigation categories will make it easier for people to reach the desired weakness ID. However, with so many categories, there is a risk of incomplete or incorrect mappings if one user follows one path of the tree, and another mapper follows a different path. Guidance will need to be written, or the tree structured in a way that minimizes this risk. Ultimately, the mapping consistency problem in the Development view could be addressed by improving search capabilities, ensuring that all categories are complete, creating additional categories to fill perceived gaps, and conducting usability studies.