We propose an LLM-as-a-Jury framework for determining machine translation publishability, aggregating judgments from multiple large language models via logistic regression rather than relying on a single judge. Publishability is defined as the absence of major or critical errors—those that render a translation unsuitable for public release without human post-editing. We compare three evaluation frameworks: a generic Edit Effort Estimation (EEE) prompt based on lexical accuracy, grammatical correctness and semantic coherence, a generic Linguistic Quality Assurance (LQA) prompt based on the MQM error taxonomy, and a purpose-built Publishability prompt optimized via DSPy and augmented with domain-specific fine-tuning. Experiments across three domains and nine language pairs show that (i) the jury ensemble matches or outperforms the best individual juror in nearly every condition, (ii) EEE and LQA juries are competitive with and occasionally exceed the Publishability jury on macro-F1, (iii) the Publishability framework offers stronger precision and a more favorable error correction asymmetry, and (iv) domain-specific fine-tuning yields substantial recall gains in client-heavy domains. These results support the viability of fully automated publishability determination in enterprise MT workflows.