From yesterday's DS449 WTO panel report:
7.317. ... In our view, bearing in mind the Appellate Body's particular function in the WTO dispute settlement system, reasons that could support but would not compel a different interpretative result to the one ultimately adopted by the Appellate Body would not rise to the level of "cogent" reasons. To our minds, "cogent" reasons, i.e. reasons that could in appropriate cases justify a panel in adopting a different interpretation, would encompass, inter alia: (i) a multilateral interpretation of a provision of the covered agreements under Article IX:2 of the WTO Agreement that departs from a prior Appellate Body interpretation; (ii) a demonstration that a prior Appellate Body interpretation proved to be unworkable in a particular set of circumstances falling within the scope of the relevant obligation at issue; (iii) a demonstration that the Appellate Body's prior interpretation leads to a conflict with another provision of a covered agreement that was not raised before the Appellate Body; or (iv) a demonstration that the Appellate Body's interpretation was based on a factually incorrect premise.
Applying that reasoning to a number of issues in the case, the Panel did not find any "cogent reasons" here.