I would be in favor of such a committee as long as it wasn't populated with scientists having clear conflicts of interest, as unfortunately was the case with the first and second DoE reports.
I've studied the reports. These reports have often been misunderstood and misrepresented -- on all sides.
The biggest problem with the first DoE review was that it was hastily convened, before there was adequate evidence to come to any conclusion at all. That first DoE review is often considered a rejection, and it's fair in some ways to say that it was; however it recommended further research "under existing programs" to resolve open questions. And then the DoE proceeded to ignore that. They never funded any more research in cold fusion.
In 2004, the report has often been presented as having come up with "similar conclusions" as to the first, and, in fact, I think the report actually says this. But "similar conclusions" was "further research." Anyone who knows what the environment was like in 1989-1990 -- where only a few voices on the ERAB panel prevented a much more negative report -- and compares it with the 2004 panel, will see a sea change,. In 2004, the panel was split evenly, with half the panel oonsidering the evidence for anomalous heat "compelling." And then a third of the panel thought htat evidence that this heat was nuclear in nature was "convincing or somewhat convincing." Now, the 1989 review was a massive affair, they visited labs, etc. In 2004, they panelists received a pile of papers, and some attended a one-day meeting in Washington. That is nowhere near enough to introduce someone to LENR. Now, one could do a great deal in one way with focused presentation. There was no back-and-forth, with opportunities to correct misudnerstandings, and the reviewer reports, which we have -- on lenr-canr.org -- show this. The crucial heat-helium evidence, the only *direct evidence* that the heat is nuclear in nature, was very much misread, to the point that what was a clear correlation, if the data were understood, became an anticorrelation.
At this point, it is, in my mind, premature to go for a major review. Rather, the basic research that was called for in 1989 and 2004 is being done. Some of it is moot, i.e., we now know that the phenomenon doesn't produce neutrons and, at least with palladium deuteride experiments, produces helium and heat and very little else is seen. That correlation wasn't known until 1991, when Miles first reported it; it's been widely confirmed, but increased precision will generate increased certainty.
There still is not full agreement in the field on the site of the reaction. There are some holdouts for it being a bulk reaction, i.e., occurring in bulk palaldium at high loading. However, the helium evidence strongly suggests it is a surface reaction. Which would be good news if we are interested in energy production! (At least for the palladium approach!)
Nickel-hydrogen reactions are not well enough established to warrant a major review, yet. To move in that direction, much more confirmation work must be done, controlled experiments with one variable, being repeated among multiple independent groups, so that data is commensurable. And it will be a major step if the reaction ash can be identified, in addition to confirming heat.
Major reviews are in order when it is proposed to massively fund a field. Right now, large amounts of money going into LENR research would, my opinion, mostly be wasted. Rather, the field badly needs to develop focus, on basic issues, and as this is done, then more and more research avenues, crying out for funding, will develop.