Effective democratic deliberation is vital for civic engagement and the health of legislative institutions. However, assessing parliamentary discourse quality is traditionally done using expert-scored, theory-based codebooks (CBs), which are rigid, labor-intensive, and prone to biases.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a scalable alternative for both schema induction and discourse annotation, ensuring schema quality and mitigating models' inherent bias remains a clear challenge. In this work, we propose a complete protocol for LLM-based codebook generation and evaluation.

Starting from the widely accepted discourse quality Index (DQI), we compare top-down (theory-based), bottom-up (data-driven), and hybrid approaches for generating context-adapted schemas. To evaluate these schemas, we define an extrinsic proxy measure, validated by manual annotations, alongside an intrinsic inter-model agreement (IMA) metric, which leverages differing model biases to signal overall reliability.

Our experiments on 100 Israeli parliament transcripts reveal that inductive, data-driven schemas achieve higher IMA than top-down methods while maintaining validity, demonstrating their potential for reliable, large-scale analysis of political discourse.