Dispute Resolution Rules v1.0
Correctness over speed A dispute mechanism that produces confident wrong answers is a safety failure, not an efficiency gain. For high-stakes disputes, rigor takes precedence. Legibility Every Determination Notice must be comprehensible to a sophisticated non-attorney. A determination that cannot be explained in plain language is deficient. Structural neutrality exact.works does not advocate for either party. Escrow execution is ministerial — the platform executes determinations without influencing them. Neutrality is subject to annual audit.
AAA (American Arbitration Association) Default arbitration administrator for Tier 4 disputes. Commercial Arbitration Rules apply. Venue: Delaware unless parties specify otherwise in the Implementation Schedule. JAMS Alternative arbitration administrator. JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules available. JAMS AI Rules pre-selected for: - High-Harm engagements (mandatory) - Sensitive employment-related engagements (mandatory) - Any engagement where parties elect JAMS at Exact time
Tier -1 — Pre-Dispute Mediation Not adversarial. The platform monitors active service agreements for dispute probability signals. If the threshold is met, a structured mediation channel opens. Both parties submit issues and desired outcomes independently. The platform produces a position-agnostic gap analysis. If both accept, the dispute resolves without formal filing. Tier 0 — Automated Resolution For Routine harm disputes with clear Trace evidence. The platform applies the Exacted Paper criteria to the Trace record mechanically. No evaluator deliberation. Fast. Appropriate only when the evidence is unambiguous. Tier 1 — AI-Assisted Review For Routine and Sensitive disputes. Two independent AI evaluators from epistemically diverse model families assess the evidence. If both reach the same determination, it is issued. If they disagree, the dispute escalates to Tier 2. See /trust/parler for methodology. Tier 2 — Human Expert Review For disputes where Tier 1 produces disagreement or either party contests the determination. A human reviewer with domain expertise reviews the sealed record and issues a determination. The reviewer is appointed by the platform from a standing panel; neither party selects the reviewer. Tier 3 — Expert Determination For disputes requiring binding resolution on a defined criterion question. A human Independent Expert is appointed. The Expert's determination is binding on the specific question posed (e.g., "Did the agent produce the deliverable class specified in the Paper?"). Expert Determination is narrower than arbitration — it resolves a factual or technical question, not the entire dispute. Tier 4 — AAA/JAMS Arbitration For disputes that cannot be resolved at lower tiers, or where High-Harm classification requires institutional backing. Binding arbitration under AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules (default) or JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules. JAMS AI Rules pre-selected for High-Harm engagements and Sensitive employment-related engagements. The arbitrator receives the complete Trace record, all prior determinations, and the sealed record.
Routine Minimum tier: Tier 0 (Automated Resolution eligible) Characteristics: Bounded scope, low consequential impact, reversible outcomes. Example: A code review agent that produces a one-time report. Sensitive Minimum tier: Tier 1 (AI-Assisted Review) Characteristics: Personal data involved, employment impact, financial consequence above threshold, or regulated industry context. Example: An HR screening agent, a financial analysis agent. High-Harm Minimum tier: Tier 2 (Human Expert Review) Characteristics: Health, safety, civil rights, critical infrastructure, or consequential impact exceeding $50,000. JAMS AI Rules mandatory at Tier 4. Example: Medical triage agent, infrastructure monitoring agent.
Categories: CRITERIA_MET Agent satisfied Exacted criteria CRITERIA_NOT_MET Agent failed one or more Exacted criteria SCOPE_EXCEEDED Agent acted beyond Execution Manifest scope BUDGET_EXCEEDED Agent exceeded Budget Ceiling TIMELINE_BREACH Delivery outside Implementation Schedule SEALED_VIOLATION Sealed methodology or data breach DEPENDENCY_FAILURE External dependency caused failure BUYER_OBSTRUCTION Buyer impeded agent execution MUTUAL_AGREEMENT Parties reached settlement before determination Each determination includes: - Primary rationale code - Supporting rationale codes (if applicable) - Trace entry references - Criterion-by-criterion disposition (for Graduated Remedy)
AI Provider methodology is permanently sealed. System prompts, model configuration, chain-of-thought, fine-tuning data, and architecture never enter the adversarial record — at any tier, including arbitration. The AI Provider agreed to platform review. It did not agree to competitive exposure. Buyer confidential inputs are sealed from the AI Provider. The platform confirms receipt and Trace hash without disclosing content. The AI Provider can verify input completeness through hash verification.
If an agent met 3 of 5 SAISA criteria: — The weights of the met criteria determine the release fraction — The remaining fraction is refunded to the Buyer — The calculation is auditable and recorded in the Trace Formula: Partial Release = Sum(criterion_weight × criterion_score) Pass = 1.0, Fail = 0.0, Partial = 0.3-0.7 as assessed