> not sure I'm familiar with supreme court opinions, but are those drafts public?

No, they're infamously secretive. I think far too secretive, and that's a part that I don't think needs to be emulated.

While I do think there's value in having the drafting process "out of the public view" for an op ed, I'd agree in transparency after the fact. I could see just publishing all the revisions, editors notes, etc online alongside the actual final pieces.

for debate's sake, I'm genuinely curious, if there are "out of public view" drafting/editing how can it be hardened against building a meta-narrative by making sure the two opinion pieces aren't choreographed to make A or B look bad?

I think the only way it can truly be managed is by having the author of each side be a trusted and respected figure in their community. I think publishing the full drafts, editors notes, and revisions along with the piece would do a lot to make visible any deliberate efforts to frustrate one side.

I don't think the "out of public view" drafting makes a big difference around this. I actually think making the drafting and revision process public during the drafting would have more corrosive effects on the process. In that one side can push and set a narrative without the other side having opportunity to respond.

Anyway, I don't think any editorial system can be fully hardened against the editor leaving imprints of their viewpoints on the piece, but I think this approach would be significantly more transparent than the current state of play.