DRR

The Dispute Resolution Rules described a five-tier process that exact.works administered — opening mediations, applying criteria to records it held, appointing reviewers, and executing the outcome against money it was holding. Administering a dispute is enforcement, and exact.works is not a party to the agreements it helps draft.

That every dispute "on exact.works" ran through rules exact.works published and exact.works applied: a platform that watched live agreements for dispute signals, resolved routine matters automatically against its own record of what happened, convened AI evaluators, appointed the human reviewer from its own panel, and then released or refunded the funds it was holding according to the result. None of that is on offer. exact.works does not adjudicate, does not appoint anyone, holds no funds to release, and does not hold the record a determination would be made from.

Two ideas in it were sound and survive as drafting, not as service. The first: rules should be published, versioned, and the same at ten dollars as at a hundred thousand. That is a property of a standard form, and the SAISA is published for exactly that reason. The second: a determination should be legible, and should say which criterion it turned on. That belongs in the agreement's own dispute terms, which the parties settle between themselves — including whether to name an institution, and which one.

exact.works is a drafting and formation tool. It helps two parties agree what happens if the work goes wrong, seals that agreement so neither can quietly revise it afterwards, and stops there. Who decides, on what evidence, under whose rules — those are terms in a contract between two people, and exact.works is neither of them.