{ "schemaVersion": "public-controlled-changes-v3", "methodology": "/benchmarks/README.md", "summary": { "comparisons": 32, "unchangedResults": 32 }, "comparisons": [ { "comparisonId": "change-001", "changeType": "party_names", "change": "Party names changed; every other fact stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Commissioning Client", "type": "entity", "position": "Our build spec named a specific pump component by brand for the fluid-handling module, and the contractor installed a different brand instead. We paid the milestones as work progressed but are holding the final balance because we did not get the component we specified. We asked for the named part or nothing, and swapping it now would mean tearing apart finished, integrated work. We should not have to pay the balance for a build that departs from an express written requirement.", "evidence": [ "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module", "Build records showing a different brand of equivalent grade was installed and sealed inside the finished assembly", "Correspondence in which the client demanded the named component or withheld the final balance", "A quote for the labor to tear out and re-integrate the finished module to swap the component" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Build Contractor", "type": "entity", "position": "The component I installed is the same grade, weight, and performance as the one named; the brand name was a shorthand for that quality standard, not the point of the job. The substitution was inadvertent, and it was only noticed after the module was closed up, so the whole thing works exactly as intended. Ripping out finished, integrated work to swap one equivalent part would cost far more than any difference in value, which is essentially nil. The final balance is owed.", "evidence": [ "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module", "Test data showing the installed component matches the named one on grade, weight, and performance", "Evidence that the named brand was specified to guarantee a galvanized standard grade, achievable by several makers", "A valuation showing no measurable difference in the finished module's value between the two brands" ] }, "facts": "A client commissioned a fabrication build under a written spec that named a specific pump-component brand for one module. The contractor installed a component of equivalent grade, weight, and performance from a different maker; the deviation was inadvertent and was noticed only after the module was closed and integrated. Replacing the component would require dismantling finished work at substantial cost, while the difference in the module's value between the two brands is negligible. The client paid the earlier milestones and is withholding the final balance, demanding the named brand. The escrow simulation holds the withheld final balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3500, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Meridian Holdings", "type": "entity", "position": "Our build spec named a specific pump component by brand for the fluid-handling module, and the contractor installed a different brand instead. We paid the milestones as work progressed but are holding the final balance because we did not get the component we specified. We asked for the named part or nothing, and swapping it now would mean tearing apart finished, integrated work. We should not have to pay the balance for a build that departs from an express written requirement.", "evidence": [ "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module", "Build records showing a different brand of equivalent grade was installed and sealed inside the finished assembly", "Correspondence in which the client demanded the named component or withheld the final balance", "A quote for the labor to tear out and re-integrate the finished module to swap the component" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Quarrystone Works", "type": "entity", "position": "The component I installed is the same grade, weight, and performance as the one named; the brand name was a shorthand for that quality standard, not the point of the job. The substitution was inadvertent, and it was only noticed after the module was closed up, so the whole thing works exactly as intended. Ripping out finished, integrated work to swap one equivalent part would cost far more than any difference in value, which is essentially nil. The final balance is owed.", "evidence": [ "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module", "Test data showing the installed component matches the named one on grade, weight, and performance", "Evidence that the named brand was specified to guarantee a galvanized standard grade, achievable by several makers", "A valuation showing no measurable difference in the finished module's value between the two brands" ] }, "facts": "A client commissioned a fabrication build under a written spec that named a specific pump-component brand for one module. The contractor installed a component of equivalent grade, weight, and performance from a different maker; the deviation was inadvertent and was noticed only after the module was closed and integrated. Replacing the component would require dismantling finished work at substantial cost, while the difference in the module's value between the two brands is negligible. The client paid the earlier milestones and is withholding the final balance, demanding the named brand. The escrow simulation holds the withheld final balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3500, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-002", "changeType": "party_names_amounts_evidence_order", "change": "Party names changed, every amount was halved, and evidence lists were reversed.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Commissioning Client", "type": "entity", "position": "Our build spec named a specific pump component by brand for the fluid-handling module, and the contractor installed a different brand instead. We paid the milestones as work progressed but are holding the final balance because we did not get the component we specified. We asked for the named part or nothing, and swapping it now would mean tearing apart finished, integrated work. We should not have to pay the balance for a build that departs from an express written requirement.", "evidence": [ "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module", "Build records showing a different brand of equivalent grade was installed and sealed inside the finished assembly", "Correspondence in which the client demanded the named component or withheld the final balance", "A quote for the labor to tear out and re-integrate the finished module to swap the component" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Build Contractor", "type": "entity", "position": "The component I installed is the same grade, weight, and performance as the one named; the brand name was a shorthand for that quality standard, not the point of the job. The substitution was inadvertent, and it was only noticed after the module was closed up, so the whole thing works exactly as intended. Ripping out finished, integrated work to swap one equivalent part would cost far more than any difference in value, which is essentially nil. The final balance is owed.", "evidence": [ "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module", "Test data showing the installed component matches the named one on grade, weight, and performance", "Evidence that the named brand was specified to guarantee a galvanized standard grade, achievable by several makers", "A valuation showing no measurable difference in the finished module's value between the two brands" ] }, "facts": "A client commissioned a fabrication build under a written spec that named a specific pump-component brand for one module. The contractor installed a component of equivalent grade, weight, and performance from a different maker; the deviation was inadvertent and was noticed only after the module was closed and integrated. Replacing the component would require dismantling finished work at substantial cost, while the difference in the module's value between the two brands is negligible. The client paid the earlier milestones and is withholding the final balance, demanding the named brand. The escrow simulation holds the withheld final balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3500, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Larkspur Ventures", "type": "entity", "position": "Our build spec named a specific pump component by brand for the fluid-handling module, and the contractor installed a different brand instead. We paid the milestones as work progressed but are holding the final balance because we did not get the component we specified. We asked for the named part or nothing, and swapping it now would mean tearing apart finished, integrated work. We should not have to pay the balance for a build that departs from an express written requirement.", "evidence": [ "A quote for the labor to tear out and re-integrate the finished module to swap the component", "Correspondence in which the client demanded the named component or withheld the final balance", "Build records showing a different brand of equivalent grade was installed and sealed inside the finished assembly", "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Copperfield Labs", "type": "entity", "position": "The component I installed is the same grade, weight, and performance as the one named; the brand name was a shorthand for that quality standard, not the point of the job. The substitution was inadvertent, and it was only noticed after the module was closed up, so the whole thing works exactly as intended. Ripping out finished, integrated work to swap one equivalent part would cost far more than any difference in value, which is essentially nil. The final balance is owed.", "evidence": [ "A valuation showing no measurable difference in the finished module's value between the two brands", "Evidence that the named brand was specified to guarantee a galvanized standard grade, achievable by several makers", "Test data showing the installed component matches the named one on grade, weight, and performance", "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module" ] }, "facts": "A client commissioned a fabrication build under a written spec that named a specific pump-component brand for one module. The contractor installed a component of equivalent grade, weight, and performance from a different maker; the deviation was inadvertent and was noticed only after the module was closed and integrated. Replacing the component would require dismantling finished work at substantial cost, while the difference in the module's value between the two brands is negligible. The client paid the earlier milestones and is withholding the final balance, demanding the named brand. The escrow simulation holds the withheld final balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 1750, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-003", "changeType": "amount_scale", "change": "Every USDC amount was multiplied by three; proportions stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Commissioning Client", "type": "entity", "position": "Our build spec named a specific pump component by brand for the fluid-handling module, and the contractor installed a different brand instead. We paid the milestones as work progressed but are holding the final balance because we did not get the component we specified. We asked for the named part or nothing, and swapping it now would mean tearing apart finished, integrated work. We should not have to pay the balance for a build that departs from an express written requirement.", "evidence": [ "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module", "Build records showing a different brand of equivalent grade was installed and sealed inside the finished assembly", "Correspondence in which the client demanded the named component or withheld the final balance", "A quote for the labor to tear out and re-integrate the finished module to swap the component" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Build Contractor", "type": "entity", "position": "The component I installed is the same grade, weight, and performance as the one named; the brand name was a shorthand for that quality standard, not the point of the job. The substitution was inadvertent, and it was only noticed after the module was closed up, so the whole thing works exactly as intended. Ripping out finished, integrated work to swap one equivalent part would cost far more than any difference in value, which is essentially nil. The final balance is owed.", "evidence": [ "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module", "Test data showing the installed component matches the named one on grade, weight, and performance", "Evidence that the named brand was specified to guarantee a galvanized standard grade, achievable by several makers", "A valuation showing no measurable difference in the finished module's value between the two brands" ] }, "facts": "A client commissioned a fabrication build under a written spec that named a specific pump-component brand for one module. The contractor installed a component of equivalent grade, weight, and performance from a different maker; the deviation was inadvertent and was noticed only after the module was closed and integrated. Replacing the component would require dismantling finished work at substantial cost, while the difference in the module's value between the two brands is negligible. The client paid the earlier milestones and is withholding the final balance, demanding the named brand. The escrow simulation holds the withheld final balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3500, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Commissioning Client", "type": "entity", "position": "Our build spec named a specific pump component by brand for the fluid-handling module, and the contractor installed a different brand instead. We paid the milestones as work progressed but are holding the final balance because we did not get the component we specified. We asked for the named part or nothing, and swapping it now would mean tearing apart finished, integrated work. We should not have to pay the balance for a build that departs from an express written requirement.", "evidence": [ "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module", "Build records showing a different brand of equivalent grade was installed and sealed inside the finished assembly", "Correspondence in which the client demanded the named component or withheld the final balance", "A quote for the labor to tear out and re-integrate the finished module to swap the component" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Build Contractor", "type": "entity", "position": "The component I installed is the same grade, weight, and performance as the one named; the brand name was a shorthand for that quality standard, not the point of the job. The substitution was inadvertent, and it was only noticed after the module was closed up, so the whole thing works exactly as intended. Ripping out finished, integrated work to swap one equivalent part would cost far more than any difference in value, which is essentially nil. The final balance is owed.", "evidence": [ "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module", "Test data showing the installed component matches the named one on grade, weight, and performance", "Evidence that the named brand was specified to guarantee a galvanized standard grade, achievable by several makers", "A valuation showing no measurable difference in the finished module's value between the two brands" ] }, "facts": "A client commissioned a fabrication build under a written spec that named a specific pump-component brand for one module. The contractor installed a component of equivalent grade, weight, and performance from a different maker; the deviation was inadvertent and was noticed only after the module was closed and integrated. Replacing the component would require dismantling finished work at substantial cost, while the difference in the module's value between the two brands is negligible. The client paid the earlier milestones and is withholding the final balance, demanding the named brand. The escrow simulation holds the withheld final balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 10500, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-004", "changeType": "party_names", "change": "Party names changed; every other fact stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Product Client", "type": "entity", "position": "The build departs from the plans we agreed on: one structural element is positioned about a foot off from the layout we signed off, which narrows a key area, and there are several smaller patching and finish issues. We paid most of the fee during the work but stopped when the departures became clear. We agreed to a specific plan and did not get it, so we should not owe the full remaining balance for something that does not match what we bargained for.", "evidence": [ "The signed build contract, plans, and specifications", "A defect list identifying the mislocated structural element and the minor patching and finish items", "Photographs showing the element positioned about a foot off from the signed layout", "An agreed schedule of cure costs for each of the minor items, totaling 400 USDC" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Build Provider", "type": "human", "position": "I delivered an essentially complete, fully usable build. The minor patching and finish items are small and I will credit their agreed cure cost. The one structural element is a foot off, but expert review shows that placement does not reduce the delivered value at all — the space is fully functional as built. Substantial performance is plainly met, so I am owed the balance less only the small, agreed repair allowance for the cosmetic items.", "evidence": [ "The signed build contract, plans, and specifications", "An expert assessment that the relocated element does not diminish the build's market value", "A walkthrough record showing the build is complete and usable", "The agreed schedule of cure costs for the minor items, totaling 400 USDC" ] }, "facts": "A client engaged a provider to produce a build to signed plans, paying most of the fee during the work. The delivered build is essentially complete and usable, but one structural element is positioned about a foot off from the plan, narrowing a key area, and several minor patching and finish items are disputed. Expert review indicates the relocated element does not reduce the build's market value; the parties have an agreed schedule of cure costs for the minor items. The escrow simulation holds the withheld balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 2700, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Meridian Holdings", "type": "entity", "position": "The build departs from the plans we agreed on: one structural element is positioned about a foot off from the layout we signed off, which narrows a key area, and there are several smaller patching and finish issues. We paid most of the fee during the work but stopped when the departures became clear. We agreed to a specific plan and did not get it, so we should not owe the full remaining balance for something that does not match what we bargained for.", "evidence": [ "The signed build contract, plans, and specifications", "A defect list identifying the mislocated structural element and the minor patching and finish items", "Photographs showing the element positioned about a foot off from the signed layout", "An agreed schedule of cure costs for each of the minor items, totaling 400 USDC" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Quarrystone Works", "type": "human", "position": "I delivered an essentially complete, fully usable build. The minor patching and finish items are small and I will credit their agreed cure cost. The one structural element is a foot off, but expert review shows that placement does not reduce the delivered value at all — the space is fully functional as built. Substantial performance is plainly met, so I am owed the balance less only the small, agreed repair allowance for the cosmetic items.", "evidence": [ "The signed build contract, plans, and specifications", "An expert assessment that the relocated element does not diminish the build's market value", "A walkthrough record showing the build is complete and usable", "The agreed schedule of cure costs for the minor items, totaling 400 USDC" ] }, "facts": "A client engaged a provider to produce a build to signed plans, paying most of the fee during the work. The delivered build is essentially complete and usable, but one structural element is positioned about a foot off from the plan, narrowing a key area, and several minor patching and finish items are disputed. Expert review indicates the relocated element does not reduce the build's market value; the parties have an agreed schedule of cure costs for the minor items. The escrow simulation holds the withheld balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 2700, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-005", "changeType": "party_names_amounts_evidence_order", "change": "Party names changed, every amount was halved, and evidence lists were reversed.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Product Client", "type": "entity", "position": "The build departs from the plans we agreed on: one structural element is positioned about a foot off from the layout we signed off, which narrows a key area, and there are several smaller patching and finish issues. We paid most of the fee during the work but stopped when the departures became clear. We agreed to a specific plan and did not get it, so we should not owe the full remaining balance for something that does not match what we bargained for.", "evidence": [ "The signed build contract, plans, and specifications", "A defect list identifying the mislocated structural element and the minor patching and finish items", "Photographs showing the element positioned about a foot off from the signed layout", "An agreed schedule of cure costs for each of the minor items, totaling 400 USDC" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Build Provider", "type": "human", "position": "I delivered an essentially complete, fully usable build. The minor patching and finish items are small and I will credit their agreed cure cost. The one structural element is a foot off, but expert review shows that placement does not reduce the delivered value at all — the space is fully functional as built. Substantial performance is plainly met, so I am owed the balance less only the small, agreed repair allowance for the cosmetic items.", "evidence": [ "The signed build contract, plans, and specifications", "An expert assessment that the relocated element does not diminish the build's market value", "A walkthrough record showing the build is complete and usable", "The agreed schedule of cure costs for the minor items, totaling 400 USDC" ] }, "facts": "A client engaged a provider to produce a build to signed plans, paying most of the fee during the work. The delivered build is essentially complete and usable, but one structural element is positioned about a foot off from the plan, narrowing a key area, and several minor patching and finish items are disputed. Expert review indicates the relocated element does not reduce the build's market value; the parties have an agreed schedule of cure costs for the minor items. The escrow simulation holds the withheld balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 2700, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Larkspur Ventures", "type": "entity", "position": "The build departs from the plans we agreed on: one structural element is positioned about a foot off from the layout we signed off, which narrows a key area, and there are several smaller patching and finish issues. We paid most of the fee during the work but stopped when the departures became clear. We agreed to a specific plan and did not get it, so we should not owe the full remaining balance for something that does not match what we bargained for.", "evidence": [ "An agreed schedule of cure costs for each of the minor items, totaling 200 USDC", "Photographs showing the element positioned about a foot off from the signed layout", "A defect list identifying the mislocated structural element and the minor patching and finish items", "The signed build contract, plans, and specifications" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Copperfield Labs", "type": "human", "position": "I delivered an essentially complete, fully usable build. The minor patching and finish items are small and I will credit their agreed cure cost. The one structural element is a foot off, but expert review shows that placement does not reduce the delivered value at all — the space is fully functional as built. Substantial performance is plainly met, so I am owed the balance less only the small, agreed repair allowance for the cosmetic items.", "evidence": [ "The agreed schedule of cure costs for the minor items, totaling 200 USDC", "A walkthrough record showing the build is complete and usable", "An expert assessment that the relocated element does not diminish the build's market value", "The signed build contract, plans, and specifications" ] }, "facts": "A client engaged a provider to produce a build to signed plans, paying most of the fee during the work. The delivered build is essentially complete and usable, but one structural element is positioned about a foot off from the plan, narrowing a key area, and several minor patching and finish items are disputed. Expert review indicates the relocated element does not reduce the build's market value; the parties have an agreed schedule of cure costs for the minor items. The escrow simulation holds the withheld balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 1350, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-006", "changeType": "amount_scale", "change": "Every USDC amount was multiplied by three; proportions stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Product Client", "type": "entity", "position": "The build departs from the plans we agreed on: one structural element is positioned about a foot off from the layout we signed off, which narrows a key area, and there are several smaller patching and finish issues. We paid most of the fee during the work but stopped when the departures became clear. We agreed to a specific plan and did not get it, so we should not owe the full remaining balance for something that does not match what we bargained for.", "evidence": [ "The signed build contract, plans, and specifications", "A defect list identifying the mislocated structural element and the minor patching and finish items", "Photographs showing the element positioned about a foot off from the signed layout", "An agreed schedule of cure costs for each of the minor items, totaling 400 USDC" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Build Provider", "type": "human", "position": "I delivered an essentially complete, fully usable build. The minor patching and finish items are small and I will credit their agreed cure cost. The one structural element is a foot off, but expert review shows that placement does not reduce the delivered value at all — the space is fully functional as built. Substantial performance is plainly met, so I am owed the balance less only the small, agreed repair allowance for the cosmetic items.", "evidence": [ "The signed build contract, plans, and specifications", "An expert assessment that the relocated element does not diminish the build's market value", "A walkthrough record showing the build is complete and usable", "The agreed schedule of cure costs for the minor items, totaling 400 USDC" ] }, "facts": "A client engaged a provider to produce a build to signed plans, paying most of the fee during the work. The delivered build is essentially complete and usable, but one structural element is positioned about a foot off from the plan, narrowing a key area, and several minor patching and finish items are disputed. Expert review indicates the relocated element does not reduce the build's market value; the parties have an agreed schedule of cure costs for the minor items. The escrow simulation holds the withheld balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 2700, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Product Client", "type": "entity", "position": "The build departs from the plans we agreed on: one structural element is positioned about a foot off from the layout we signed off, which narrows a key area, and there are several smaller patching and finish issues. We paid most of the fee during the work but stopped when the departures became clear. We agreed to a specific plan and did not get it, so we should not owe the full remaining balance for something that does not match what we bargained for.", "evidence": [ "The signed build contract, plans, and specifications", "A defect list identifying the mislocated structural element and the minor patching and finish items", "Photographs showing the element positioned about a foot off from the signed layout", "An agreed schedule of cure costs for each of the minor items, totaling 1200 USDC" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Build Provider", "type": "human", "position": "I delivered an essentially complete, fully usable build. The minor patching and finish items are small and I will credit their agreed cure cost. The one structural element is a foot off, but expert review shows that placement does not reduce the delivered value at all — the space is fully functional as built. Substantial performance is plainly met, so I am owed the balance less only the small, agreed repair allowance for the cosmetic items.", "evidence": [ "The signed build contract, plans, and specifications", "An expert assessment that the relocated element does not diminish the build's market value", "A walkthrough record showing the build is complete and usable", "The agreed schedule of cure costs for the minor items, totaling 1200 USDC" ] }, "facts": "A client engaged a provider to produce a build to signed plans, paying most of the fee during the work. The delivered build is essentially complete and usable, but one structural element is positioned about a foot off from the plan, narrowing a key area, and several minor patching and finish items are disputed. Expert review indicates the relocated element does not reduce the build's market value; the parties have an agreed schedule of cure costs for the minor items. The escrow simulation holds the withheld balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 8100, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-007", "changeType": "party_names", "change": "Party names changed; every other fact stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Brand Client", "type": "human", "position": "We contracted for a specific, uniform visual treatment and got a streaked, patchy result that reads as inconsistent across the whole asset. Months after an attempted fix, it still has not settled into the uniform look we specified, and the only way to actually get that look is to redo the entire piece. This was a visual deliverable and the visual is exactly what failed. Performance was not substantial, so the fee should not be enforced against us.", "evidence": [ "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment", "Side-by-side captures showing the streaked, non-uniform delivered result", "A record that the inconsistency persisted months after an attempted remedy", "An assessment that the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is a complete redo" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Design Provider", "type": "human", "position": "The deliverable is complete and fully functional — it does everything it is supposed to do and covers the whole scope. Some visual variation is normal and, at most, warrants a small allowance, not withholding the entire fee. The work substantially performs the contract, and I should be paid, subject at most to a minor deduction for the variation the client dislikes.", "evidence": [ "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment", "Delivery records showing the full scope was produced and is functional", "The provider's assessment that the variation is minor and settles over time" ] }, "facts": "A client engaged a provider for a creative deliverable with a written brief specifying a uniform visual treatment. The delivered work is functional and covers the full scope but shows a streaked, non-uniform appearance; months after an attempted fix the inconsistency persisted, and the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is to redo the entire piece. The client refuses to pay; the provider says the work substantially performs and warrants at most a minor allowance. The escrow simulation holds the disputed fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Meridian Holdings", "type": "human", "position": "We contracted for a specific, uniform visual treatment and got a streaked, patchy result that reads as inconsistent across the whole asset. Months after an attempted fix, it still has not settled into the uniform look we specified, and the only way to actually get that look is to redo the entire piece. This was a visual deliverable and the visual is exactly what failed. Performance was not substantial, so the fee should not be enforced against us.", "evidence": [ "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment", "Side-by-side captures showing the streaked, non-uniform delivered result", "A record that the inconsistency persisted months after an attempted remedy", "An assessment that the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is a complete redo" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Quarrystone Works", "type": "human", "position": "The deliverable is complete and fully functional — it does everything it is supposed to do and covers the whole scope. Some visual variation is normal and, at most, warrants a small allowance, not withholding the entire fee. The work substantially performs the contract, and I should be paid, subject at most to a minor deduction for the variation the client dislikes.", "evidence": [ "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment", "Delivery records showing the full scope was produced and is functional", "The provider's assessment that the variation is minor and settles over time" ] }, "facts": "A client engaged a provider for a creative deliverable with a written brief specifying a uniform visual treatment. The delivered work is functional and covers the full scope but shows a streaked, non-uniform appearance; months after an attempted fix the inconsistency persisted, and the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is to redo the entire piece. The client refuses to pay; the provider says the work substantially performs and warrants at most a minor allowance. The escrow simulation holds the disputed fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-008", "changeType": "party_names_amounts_evidence_order", "change": "Party names changed, every amount was halved, and evidence lists were reversed.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Brand Client", "type": "human", "position": "We contracted for a specific, uniform visual treatment and got a streaked, patchy result that reads as inconsistent across the whole asset. Months after an attempted fix, it still has not settled into the uniform look we specified, and the only way to actually get that look is to redo the entire piece. This was a visual deliverable and the visual is exactly what failed. Performance was not substantial, so the fee should not be enforced against us.", "evidence": [ "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment", "Side-by-side captures showing the streaked, non-uniform delivered result", "A record that the inconsistency persisted months after an attempted remedy", "An assessment that the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is a complete redo" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Design Provider", "type": "human", "position": "The deliverable is complete and fully functional — it does everything it is supposed to do and covers the whole scope. Some visual variation is normal and, at most, warrants a small allowance, not withholding the entire fee. The work substantially performs the contract, and I should be paid, subject at most to a minor deduction for the variation the client dislikes.", "evidence": [ "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment", "Delivery records showing the full scope was produced and is functional", "The provider's assessment that the variation is minor and settles over time" ] }, "facts": "A client engaged a provider for a creative deliverable with a written brief specifying a uniform visual treatment. The delivered work is functional and covers the full scope but shows a streaked, non-uniform appearance; months after an attempted fix the inconsistency persisted, and the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is to redo the entire piece. The client refuses to pay; the provider says the work substantially performs and warrants at most a minor allowance. The escrow simulation holds the disputed fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Larkspur Ventures", "type": "human", "position": "We contracted for a specific, uniform visual treatment and got a streaked, patchy result that reads as inconsistent across the whole asset. Months after an attempted fix, it still has not settled into the uniform look we specified, and the only way to actually get that look is to redo the entire piece. This was a visual deliverable and the visual is exactly what failed. Performance was not substantial, so the fee should not be enforced against us.", "evidence": [ "An assessment that the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is a complete redo", "A record that the inconsistency persisted months after an attempted remedy", "Side-by-side captures showing the streaked, non-uniform delivered result", "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Copperfield Labs", "type": "human", "position": "The deliverable is complete and fully functional — it does everything it is supposed to do and covers the whole scope. Some visual variation is normal and, at most, warrants a small allowance, not withholding the entire fee. The work substantially performs the contract, and I should be paid, subject at most to a minor deduction for the variation the client dislikes.", "evidence": [ "The provider's assessment that the variation is minor and settles over time", "Delivery records showing the full scope was produced and is functional", "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment" ] }, "facts": "A client engaged a provider for a creative deliverable with a written brief specifying a uniform visual treatment. The delivered work is functional and covers the full scope but shows a streaked, non-uniform appearance; months after an attempted fix the inconsistency persisted, and the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is to redo the entire piece. The client refuses to pay; the provider says the work substantially performs and warrants at most a minor allowance. The escrow simulation holds the disputed fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 1500, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-009", "changeType": "amount_scale", "change": "Every USDC amount was multiplied by three; proportions stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Brand Client", "type": "human", "position": "We contracted for a specific, uniform visual treatment and got a streaked, patchy result that reads as inconsistent across the whole asset. Months after an attempted fix, it still has not settled into the uniform look we specified, and the only way to actually get that look is to redo the entire piece. This was a visual deliverable and the visual is exactly what failed. Performance was not substantial, so the fee should not be enforced against us.", "evidence": [ "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment", "Side-by-side captures showing the streaked, non-uniform delivered result", "A record that the inconsistency persisted months after an attempted remedy", "An assessment that the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is a complete redo" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Design Provider", "type": "human", "position": "The deliverable is complete and fully functional — it does everything it is supposed to do and covers the whole scope. Some visual variation is normal and, at most, warrants a small allowance, not withholding the entire fee. The work substantially performs the contract, and I should be paid, subject at most to a minor deduction for the variation the client dislikes.", "evidence": [ "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment", "Delivery records showing the full scope was produced and is functional", "The provider's assessment that the variation is minor and settles over time" ] }, "facts": "A client engaged a provider for a creative deliverable with a written brief specifying a uniform visual treatment. The delivered work is functional and covers the full scope but shows a streaked, non-uniform appearance; months after an attempted fix the inconsistency persisted, and the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is to redo the entire piece. The client refuses to pay; the provider says the work substantially performs and warrants at most a minor allowance. The escrow simulation holds the disputed fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Brand Client", "type": "human", "position": "We contracted for a specific, uniform visual treatment and got a streaked, patchy result that reads as inconsistent across the whole asset. Months after an attempted fix, it still has not settled into the uniform look we specified, and the only way to actually get that look is to redo the entire piece. This was a visual deliverable and the visual is exactly what failed. Performance was not substantial, so the fee should not be enforced against us.", "evidence": [ "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment", "Side-by-side captures showing the streaked, non-uniform delivered result", "A record that the inconsistency persisted months after an attempted remedy", "An assessment that the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is a complete redo" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Design Provider", "type": "human", "position": "The deliverable is complete and fully functional — it does everything it is supposed to do and covers the whole scope. Some visual variation is normal and, at most, warrants a small allowance, not withholding the entire fee. The work substantially performs the contract, and I should be paid, subject at most to a minor deduction for the variation the client dislikes.", "evidence": [ "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment", "Delivery records showing the full scope was produced and is functional", "The provider's assessment that the variation is minor and settles over time" ] }, "facts": "A client engaged a provider for a creative deliverable with a written brief specifying a uniform visual treatment. The delivered work is functional and covers the full scope but shows a streaked, non-uniform appearance; months after an attempted fix the inconsistency persisted, and the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is to redo the entire piece. The client refuses to pay; the provider says the work substantially performs and warrants at most a minor allowance. The escrow simulation holds the disputed fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 9000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-010", "changeType": "party_names", "change": "Party names changed; every other fact stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Ordering Buyer", "type": "entity", "position": "We ordered a deliverable described by a common term that, in our field and in ordinary commercial use, means the narrower, higher-tier version. What arrived met the stated size and grade but was the broad, lower-tier version — not what the term means to buyers like us. We paid for the narrower thing and did not get it, so we are entitled to a refund of the escrowed payment.", "evidence": [ "The two written orders stating the term, the size class, and the grade", "Dictionary and reference definitions the buyer relies on for the narrower meaning", "Statements from some market participants that the term denotes the narrower version", "Records of pre-order discussions using a word that the buyer says pointed to the narrower version" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Supplying Seller", "type": "entity", "position": "The term in the order is broad and is satisfied by any version meeting the specified size and grade, which is exactly what I shipped. If the buyer wanted the narrower, higher-tier version, the order needed to say so. The price the buyer agreed to was at or below the market price for the narrower version, which shows both sides meant the broad term. There is a governing regulatory definition of the term, and it is broad. I delivered conforming goods and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "The two written orders stating the term, the size class, and the grade", "The regulatory definition incorporated by the order, which reads the term broadly", "Market price data showing the agreed price matched the broad version, not the narrower one", "Statements from other market participants that the term covers the broad version", "Delivery records showing the goods met the stated size and grade" ] }, "facts": "A buyer and seller contracted for a deliverable identified by a single common term, in a stated size class and grade, without defining the term. The buyer expected the narrower, higher-tier version; the seller shipped the broad version, which met the stated size and grade. The evidence on meaning is mixed: dictionary references and some market participants support the narrow reading, while an incorporated regulatory definition, the agreed price relative to market, and other participants support the broad reading. Pre-order discussions used a word that itself covers both versions. The escrow simulation holds the buyer's payment.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 12000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Meridian Holdings", "type": "entity", "position": "We ordered a deliverable described by a common term that, in our field and in ordinary commercial use, means the narrower, higher-tier version. What arrived met the stated size and grade but was the broad, lower-tier version — not what the term means to buyers like us. We paid for the narrower thing and did not get it, so we are entitled to a refund of the escrowed payment.", "evidence": [ "The two written orders stating the term, the size class, and the grade", "Dictionary and reference definitions the buyer relies on for the narrower meaning", "Statements from some market participants that the term denotes the narrower version", "Records of pre-order discussions using a word that the buyer says pointed to the narrower version" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Quarrystone Works", "type": "entity", "position": "The term in the order is broad and is satisfied by any version meeting the specified size and grade, which is exactly what I shipped. If the buyer wanted the narrower, higher-tier version, the order needed to say so. The price the buyer agreed to was at or below the market price for the narrower version, which shows both sides meant the broad term. There is a governing regulatory definition of the term, and it is broad. I delivered conforming goods and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "The two written orders stating the term, the size class, and the grade", "The regulatory definition incorporated by the order, which reads the term broadly", "Market price data showing the agreed price matched the broad version, not the narrower one", "Statements from other market participants that the term covers the broad version", "Delivery records showing the goods met the stated size and grade" ] }, "facts": "A buyer and seller contracted for a deliverable identified by a single common term, in a stated size class and grade, without defining the term. The buyer expected the narrower, higher-tier version; the seller shipped the broad version, which met the stated size and grade. The evidence on meaning is mixed: dictionary references and some market participants support the narrow reading, while an incorporated regulatory definition, the agreed price relative to market, and other participants support the broad reading. Pre-order discussions used a word that itself covers both versions. The escrow simulation holds the buyer's payment.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 12000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-011", "changeType": "party_names_amounts_evidence_order", "change": "Party names changed, every amount was halved, and evidence lists were reversed.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Ordering Buyer", "type": "entity", "position": "We ordered a deliverable described by a common term that, in our field and in ordinary commercial use, means the narrower, higher-tier version. What arrived met the stated size and grade but was the broad, lower-tier version — not what the term means to buyers like us. We paid for the narrower thing and did not get it, so we are entitled to a refund of the escrowed payment.", "evidence": [ "The two written orders stating the term, the size class, and the grade", "Dictionary and reference definitions the buyer relies on for the narrower meaning", "Statements from some market participants that the term denotes the narrower version", "Records of pre-order discussions using a word that the buyer says pointed to the narrower version" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Supplying Seller", "type": "entity", "position": "The term in the order is broad and is satisfied by any version meeting the specified size and grade, which is exactly what I shipped. If the buyer wanted the narrower, higher-tier version, the order needed to say so. The price the buyer agreed to was at or below the market price for the narrower version, which shows both sides meant the broad term. There is a governing regulatory definition of the term, and it is broad. I delivered conforming goods and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "The two written orders stating the term, the size class, and the grade", "The regulatory definition incorporated by the order, which reads the term broadly", "Market price data showing the agreed price matched the broad version, not the narrower one", "Statements from other market participants that the term covers the broad version", "Delivery records showing the goods met the stated size and grade" ] }, "facts": "A buyer and seller contracted for a deliverable identified by a single common term, in a stated size class and grade, without defining the term. The buyer expected the narrower, higher-tier version; the seller shipped the broad version, which met the stated size and grade. The evidence on meaning is mixed: dictionary references and some market participants support the narrow reading, while an incorporated regulatory definition, the agreed price relative to market, and other participants support the broad reading. Pre-order discussions used a word that itself covers both versions. The escrow simulation holds the buyer's payment.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 12000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Larkspur Ventures", "type": "entity", "position": "We ordered a deliverable described by a common term that, in our field and in ordinary commercial use, means the narrower, higher-tier version. What arrived met the stated size and grade but was the broad, lower-tier version — not what the term means to buyers like us. We paid for the narrower thing and did not get it, so we are entitled to a refund of the escrowed payment.", "evidence": [ "Records of pre-order discussions using a word that the buyer says pointed to the narrower version", "Statements from some market participants that the term denotes the narrower version", "Dictionary and reference definitions the buyer relies on for the narrower meaning", "The two written orders stating the term, the size class, and the grade" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Copperfield Labs", "type": "entity", "position": "The term in the order is broad and is satisfied by any version meeting the specified size and grade, which is exactly what I shipped. If the buyer wanted the narrower, higher-tier version, the order needed to say so. The price the buyer agreed to was at or below the market price for the narrower version, which shows both sides meant the broad term. There is a governing regulatory definition of the term, and it is broad. I delivered conforming goods and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "Delivery records showing the goods met the stated size and grade", "Statements from other market participants that the term covers the broad version", "Market price data showing the agreed price matched the broad version, not the narrower one", "The regulatory definition incorporated by the order, which reads the term broadly", "The two written orders stating the term, the size class, and the grade" ] }, "facts": "A buyer and seller contracted for a deliverable identified by a single common term, in a stated size class and grade, without defining the term. The buyer expected the narrower, higher-tier version; the seller shipped the broad version, which met the stated size and grade. The evidence on meaning is mixed: dictionary references and some market participants support the narrow reading, while an incorporated regulatory definition, the agreed price relative to market, and other participants support the broad reading. Pre-order discussions used a word that itself covers both versions. The escrow simulation holds the buyer's payment.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 6000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-012", "changeType": "amount_scale", "change": "Every USDC amount was multiplied by three; proportions stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Ordering Buyer", "type": "entity", "position": "We ordered a deliverable described by a common term that, in our field and in ordinary commercial use, means the narrower, higher-tier version. What arrived met the stated size and grade but was the broad, lower-tier version — not what the term means to buyers like us. We paid for the narrower thing and did not get it, so we are entitled to a refund of the escrowed payment.", "evidence": [ "The two written orders stating the term, the size class, and the grade", "Dictionary and reference definitions the buyer relies on for the narrower meaning", "Statements from some market participants that the term denotes the narrower version", "Records of pre-order discussions using a word that the buyer says pointed to the narrower version" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Supplying Seller", "type": "entity", "position": "The term in the order is broad and is satisfied by any version meeting the specified size and grade, which is exactly what I shipped. If the buyer wanted the narrower, higher-tier version, the order needed to say so. The price the buyer agreed to was at or below the market price for the narrower version, which shows both sides meant the broad term. There is a governing regulatory definition of the term, and it is broad. I delivered conforming goods and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "The two written orders stating the term, the size class, and the grade", "The regulatory definition incorporated by the order, which reads the term broadly", "Market price data showing the agreed price matched the broad version, not the narrower one", "Statements from other market participants that the term covers the broad version", "Delivery records showing the goods met the stated size and grade" ] }, "facts": "A buyer and seller contracted for a deliverable identified by a single common term, in a stated size class and grade, without defining the term. The buyer expected the narrower, higher-tier version; the seller shipped the broad version, which met the stated size and grade. The evidence on meaning is mixed: dictionary references and some market participants support the narrow reading, while an incorporated regulatory definition, the agreed price relative to market, and other participants support the broad reading. Pre-order discussions used a word that itself covers both versions. The escrow simulation holds the buyer's payment.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 12000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Ordering Buyer", "type": "entity", "position": "We ordered a deliverable described by a common term that, in our field and in ordinary commercial use, means the narrower, higher-tier version. What arrived met the stated size and grade but was the broad, lower-tier version — not what the term means to buyers like us. We paid for the narrower thing and did not get it, so we are entitled to a refund of the escrowed payment.", "evidence": [ "The two written orders stating the term, the size class, and the grade", "Dictionary and reference definitions the buyer relies on for the narrower meaning", "Statements from some market participants that the term denotes the narrower version", "Records of pre-order discussions using a word that the buyer says pointed to the narrower version" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Supplying Seller", "type": "entity", "position": "The term in the order is broad and is satisfied by any version meeting the specified size and grade, which is exactly what I shipped. If the buyer wanted the narrower, higher-tier version, the order needed to say so. The price the buyer agreed to was at or below the market price for the narrower version, which shows both sides meant the broad term. There is a governing regulatory definition of the term, and it is broad. I delivered conforming goods and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "The two written orders stating the term, the size class, and the grade", "The regulatory definition incorporated by the order, which reads the term broadly", "Market price data showing the agreed price matched the broad version, not the narrower one", "Statements from other market participants that the term covers the broad version", "Delivery records showing the goods met the stated size and grade" ] }, "facts": "A buyer and seller contracted for a deliverable identified by a single common term, in a stated size class and grade, without defining the term. The buyer expected the narrower, higher-tier version; the seller shipped the broad version, which met the stated size and grade. The evidence on meaning is mixed: dictionary references and some market participants support the narrow reading, while an incorporated regulatory definition, the agreed price relative to market, and other participants support the broad reading. Pre-order discussions used a word that itself covers both versions. The escrow simulation holds the buyer's payment.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 36000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-013", "changeType": "party_names", "change": "Party names changed; every other fact stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Exclusive Agent", "type": "human", "position": "I was given the exclusive right to place and market the other party's work for a set term, splitting the proceeds. By taking on an exclusive, commission-only arrangement, I necessarily undertook to actually work it — that is the only way I ever get paid. Instead, the principal placed the work through other channels and kept the proceeds, cutting me out of the exclusive I was granted. The revenue that should have flowed through me is being withheld, and my share of the pooled proceeds should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The written exclusive-agency agreement and its revenue-split and exclusivity terms", "Records of the principal's outside placements during the exclusive term", "The pooled proceeds from those outside placements, now escrowed", "The commercial structure showing the agent's only compensation was a share of proceeds" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Principal", "type": "human", "position": "The written agreement spells out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contains no promise that the agent would actually market anything. Because the agent promised nothing binding, there was no real commitment on that side, and I remained free to place my work elsewhere and keep what I earned. The escrowed proceeds came from my own outside efforts, not from anything the agent did, so they should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The written exclusive-agency agreement, silent on any effort obligation", "The agreement's exclusivity and accounting clauses", "Records showing the escrowed proceeds came from the principal's own outside placements" ] }, "facts": "A principal granted an agent the exclusive right to place and market the principal's work for a term, splitting proceeds equally. The written agreement set out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contained no express promise that the agent would market anything. During the term the principal placed the work through other channels and retained the proceeds. The agent contends an obligation to use reasonable efforts is inherent in an exclusive, commission-only engagement; the principal contends the absence of any binding promise by the agent left the principal free to earn elsewhere. The escrow simulation holds the pooled proceeds from the outside placements.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 10000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Meridian Holdings", "type": "human", "position": "I was given the exclusive right to place and market the other party's work for a set term, splitting the proceeds. By taking on an exclusive, commission-only arrangement, I necessarily undertook to actually work it — that is the only way I ever get paid. Instead, the principal placed the work through other channels and kept the proceeds, cutting me out of the exclusive I was granted. The revenue that should have flowed through me is being withheld, and my share of the pooled proceeds should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The written exclusive-agency agreement and its revenue-split and exclusivity terms", "Records of the principal's outside placements during the exclusive term", "The pooled proceeds from those outside placements, now escrowed", "The commercial structure showing the agent's only compensation was a share of proceeds" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Quarrystone Works", "type": "human", "position": "The written agreement spells out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contains no promise that the agent would actually market anything. Because the agent promised nothing binding, there was no real commitment on that side, and I remained free to place my work elsewhere and keep what I earned. The escrowed proceeds came from my own outside efforts, not from anything the agent did, so they should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The written exclusive-agency agreement, silent on any effort obligation", "The agreement's exclusivity and accounting clauses", "Records showing the escrowed proceeds came from the principal's own outside placements" ] }, "facts": "A principal granted an agent the exclusive right to place and market the principal's work for a term, splitting proceeds equally. The written agreement set out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contained no express promise that the agent would market anything. During the term the principal placed the work through other channels and retained the proceeds. The agent contends an obligation to use reasonable efforts is inherent in an exclusive, commission-only engagement; the principal contends the absence of any binding promise by the agent left the principal free to earn elsewhere. The escrow simulation holds the pooled proceeds from the outside placements.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 10000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "split", "allocation": { "claimant": 0.5, "respondent": 0.5 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "split", "allocation": { "claimant": 0.5, "respondent": 0.5 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-014", "changeType": "party_names_amounts_evidence_order", "change": "Party names changed, every amount was halved, and evidence lists were reversed.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Exclusive Agent", "type": "human", "position": "I was given the exclusive right to place and market the other party's work for a set term, splitting the proceeds. By taking on an exclusive, commission-only arrangement, I necessarily undertook to actually work it — that is the only way I ever get paid. Instead, the principal placed the work through other channels and kept the proceeds, cutting me out of the exclusive I was granted. The revenue that should have flowed through me is being withheld, and my share of the pooled proceeds should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The written exclusive-agency agreement and its revenue-split and exclusivity terms", "Records of the principal's outside placements during the exclusive term", "The pooled proceeds from those outside placements, now escrowed", "The commercial structure showing the agent's only compensation was a share of proceeds" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Principal", "type": "human", "position": "The written agreement spells out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contains no promise that the agent would actually market anything. Because the agent promised nothing binding, there was no real commitment on that side, and I remained free to place my work elsewhere and keep what I earned. The escrowed proceeds came from my own outside efforts, not from anything the agent did, so they should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The written exclusive-agency agreement, silent on any effort obligation", "The agreement's exclusivity and accounting clauses", "Records showing the escrowed proceeds came from the principal's own outside placements" ] }, "facts": "A principal granted an agent the exclusive right to place and market the principal's work for a term, splitting proceeds equally. The written agreement set out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contained no express promise that the agent would market anything. During the term the principal placed the work through other channels and retained the proceeds. The agent contends an obligation to use reasonable efforts is inherent in an exclusive, commission-only engagement; the principal contends the absence of any binding promise by the agent left the principal free to earn elsewhere. The escrow simulation holds the pooled proceeds from the outside placements.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 10000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Larkspur Ventures", "type": "human", "position": "I was given the exclusive right to place and market the other party's work for a set term, splitting the proceeds. By taking on an exclusive, commission-only arrangement, I necessarily undertook to actually work it — that is the only way I ever get paid. Instead, the principal placed the work through other channels and kept the proceeds, cutting me out of the exclusive I was granted. The revenue that should have flowed through me is being withheld, and my share of the pooled proceeds should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The commercial structure showing the agent's only compensation was a share of proceeds", "The pooled proceeds from those outside placements, now escrowed", "Records of the principal's outside placements during the exclusive term", "The written exclusive-agency agreement and its revenue-split and exclusivity terms" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Copperfield Labs", "type": "human", "position": "The written agreement spells out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contains no promise that the agent would actually market anything. Because the agent promised nothing binding, there was no real commitment on that side, and I remained free to place my work elsewhere and keep what I earned. The escrowed proceeds came from my own outside efforts, not from anything the agent did, so they should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "Records showing the escrowed proceeds came from the principal's own outside placements", "The agreement's exclusivity and accounting clauses", "The written exclusive-agency agreement, silent on any effort obligation" ] }, "facts": "A principal granted an agent the exclusive right to place and market the principal's work for a term, splitting proceeds equally. The written agreement set out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contained no express promise that the agent would market anything. During the term the principal placed the work through other channels and retained the proceeds. The agent contends an obligation to use reasonable efforts is inherent in an exclusive, commission-only engagement; the principal contends the absence of any binding promise by the agent left the principal free to earn elsewhere. The escrow simulation holds the pooled proceeds from the outside placements.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 5000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "split", "allocation": { "claimant": 0.5, "respondent": 0.5 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "split", "allocation": { "claimant": 0.5, "respondent": 0.5 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-015", "changeType": "amount_scale", "change": "Every USDC amount was multiplied by three; proportions stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Exclusive Agent", "type": "human", "position": "I was given the exclusive right to place and market the other party's work for a set term, splitting the proceeds. By taking on an exclusive, commission-only arrangement, I necessarily undertook to actually work it — that is the only way I ever get paid. Instead, the principal placed the work through other channels and kept the proceeds, cutting me out of the exclusive I was granted. The revenue that should have flowed through me is being withheld, and my share of the pooled proceeds should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The written exclusive-agency agreement and its revenue-split and exclusivity terms", "Records of the principal's outside placements during the exclusive term", "The pooled proceeds from those outside placements, now escrowed", "The commercial structure showing the agent's only compensation was a share of proceeds" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Principal", "type": "human", "position": "The written agreement spells out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contains no promise that the agent would actually market anything. Because the agent promised nothing binding, there was no real commitment on that side, and I remained free to place my work elsewhere and keep what I earned. The escrowed proceeds came from my own outside efforts, not from anything the agent did, so they should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The written exclusive-agency agreement, silent on any effort obligation", "The agreement's exclusivity and accounting clauses", "Records showing the escrowed proceeds came from the principal's own outside placements" ] }, "facts": "A principal granted an agent the exclusive right to place and market the principal's work for a term, splitting proceeds equally. The written agreement set out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contained no express promise that the agent would market anything. During the term the principal placed the work through other channels and retained the proceeds. The agent contends an obligation to use reasonable efforts is inherent in an exclusive, commission-only engagement; the principal contends the absence of any binding promise by the agent left the principal free to earn elsewhere. The escrow simulation holds the pooled proceeds from the outside placements.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 10000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Exclusive Agent", "type": "human", "position": "I was given the exclusive right to place and market the other party's work for a set term, splitting the proceeds. By taking on an exclusive, commission-only arrangement, I necessarily undertook to actually work it — that is the only way I ever get paid. Instead, the principal placed the work through other channels and kept the proceeds, cutting me out of the exclusive I was granted. The revenue that should have flowed through me is being withheld, and my share of the pooled proceeds should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The written exclusive-agency agreement and its revenue-split and exclusivity terms", "Records of the principal's outside placements during the exclusive term", "The pooled proceeds from those outside placements, now escrowed", "The commercial structure showing the agent's only compensation was a share of proceeds" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Principal", "type": "human", "position": "The written agreement spells out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contains no promise that the agent would actually market anything. Because the agent promised nothing binding, there was no real commitment on that side, and I remained free to place my work elsewhere and keep what I earned. The escrowed proceeds came from my own outside efforts, not from anything the agent did, so they should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The written exclusive-agency agreement, silent on any effort obligation", "The agreement's exclusivity and accounting clauses", "Records showing the escrowed proceeds came from the principal's own outside placements" ] }, "facts": "A principal granted an agent the exclusive right to place and market the principal's work for a term, splitting proceeds equally. The written agreement set out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contained no express promise that the agent would market anything. During the term the principal placed the work through other channels and retained the proceeds. The agent contends an obligation to use reasonable efforts is inherent in an exclusive, commission-only engagement; the principal contends the absence of any binding promise by the agent left the principal free to earn elsewhere. The escrow simulation holds the pooled proceeds from the outside placements.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 30000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "split", "allocation": { "claimant": 0.5, "respondent": 0.5 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "split", "allocation": { "claimant": 0.5, "respondent": 0.5 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-016", "changeType": "party_names", "change": "Party names changed; every other fact stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Committed Buyer", "type": "entity", "position": "Our long-term supply deal priced at the supplier's posted rate at delivery, but for years the supplier protected the rate on volume we had already committed to jobs, exactly as the stipulated industry practice requires. The supplier then raised the rate sharply with one day's notice and refused to protect the volume we had already committed. Both the stipulated trade practice and our own prior course of dealing made rate protection part of this contract, and applying the increase to already-committed work breached it. We are owed the difference on that committed volume.", "evidence": [ "The written supply contract and its posted-rate-at-delivery term", "The stipulated fact of a rate-protection practice across this industry for already-committed volume", "Records of the parties' own prior conduct protecting committed volume on earlier rate changes", "The one-day-notice rate increase and its effect on the buyer's already-committed volume", "The buyer's calculation of the disputed difference on the committed volume" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Supplier", "type": "entity", "position": "The contract set the price at the posted rate at delivery, full stop. There is no rate-protection clause in the written deal, and a general industry practice cannot contradict an express price term the parties actually wrote down. When I posted a new rate, that was the contract price at delivery for everything delivered after it. I owe nothing beyond honoring the posted-rate term as written, and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "The written supply contract and its posted-rate-at-delivery term", "The absence of any rate-protection clause in the written deal", "The posted new rate and the delivery dates it applied to" ] }, "facts": "A buyer and supplier had a long-term supply contract pricing at the supplier's posted rate at delivery. It is stipulated in the record that the relevant industry protects the rate on volume a buyer has already committed to jobs, and that the parties themselves had followed that protection on earlier rate changes. The supplier then raised the rate sharply with one day's notice and did not protect the buyer's already-committed volume. The buyer contends the stipulated trade usage and the prior course of dealing supplement the bare price term; the supplier contends the express posted-rate term cannot be contradicted by usage. The escrow simulation holds the disputed difference on the committed volume.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 20000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Meridian Holdings", "type": "entity", "position": "Our long-term supply deal priced at the supplier's posted rate at delivery, but for years the supplier protected the rate on volume we had already committed to jobs, exactly as the stipulated industry practice requires. The supplier then raised the rate sharply with one day's notice and refused to protect the volume we had already committed. Both the stipulated trade practice and our own prior course of dealing made rate protection part of this contract, and applying the increase to already-committed work breached it. We are owed the difference on that committed volume.", "evidence": [ "The written supply contract and its posted-rate-at-delivery term", "The stipulated fact of a rate-protection practice across this industry for already-committed volume", "Records of the parties' own prior conduct protecting committed volume on earlier rate changes", "The one-day-notice rate increase and its effect on the buyer's already-committed volume", "The buyer's calculation of the disputed difference on the committed volume" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Quarrystone Works", "type": "entity", "position": "The contract set the price at the posted rate at delivery, full stop. There is no rate-protection clause in the written deal, and a general industry practice cannot contradict an express price term the parties actually wrote down. When I posted a new rate, that was the contract price at delivery for everything delivered after it. I owe nothing beyond honoring the posted-rate term as written, and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "The written supply contract and its posted-rate-at-delivery term", "The absence of any rate-protection clause in the written deal", "The posted new rate and the delivery dates it applied to" ] }, "facts": "A buyer and supplier had a long-term supply contract pricing at the supplier's posted rate at delivery. It is stipulated in the record that the relevant industry protects the rate on volume a buyer has already committed to jobs, and that the parties themselves had followed that protection on earlier rate changes. The supplier then raised the rate sharply with one day's notice and did not protect the buyer's already-committed volume. The buyer contends the stipulated trade usage and the prior course of dealing supplement the bare price term; the supplier contends the express posted-rate term cannot be contradicted by usage. The escrow simulation holds the disputed difference on the committed volume.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 20000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-017", "changeType": "party_names_amounts_evidence_order", "change": "Party names changed, every amount was halved, and evidence lists were reversed.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Committed Buyer", "type": "entity", "position": "Our long-term supply deal priced at the supplier's posted rate at delivery, but for years the supplier protected the rate on volume we had already committed to jobs, exactly as the stipulated industry practice requires. The supplier then raised the rate sharply with one day's notice and refused to protect the volume we had already committed. Both the stipulated trade practice and our own prior course of dealing made rate protection part of this contract, and applying the increase to already-committed work breached it. We are owed the difference on that committed volume.", "evidence": [ "The written supply contract and its posted-rate-at-delivery term", "The stipulated fact of a rate-protection practice across this industry for already-committed volume", "Records of the parties' own prior conduct protecting committed volume on earlier rate changes", "The one-day-notice rate increase and its effect on the buyer's already-committed volume", "The buyer's calculation of the disputed difference on the committed volume" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Supplier", "type": "entity", "position": "The contract set the price at the posted rate at delivery, full stop. There is no rate-protection clause in the written deal, and a general industry practice cannot contradict an express price term the parties actually wrote down. When I posted a new rate, that was the contract price at delivery for everything delivered after it. I owe nothing beyond honoring the posted-rate term as written, and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "The written supply contract and its posted-rate-at-delivery term", "The absence of any rate-protection clause in the written deal", "The posted new rate and the delivery dates it applied to" ] }, "facts": "A buyer and supplier had a long-term supply contract pricing at the supplier's posted rate at delivery. It is stipulated in the record that the relevant industry protects the rate on volume a buyer has already committed to jobs, and that the parties themselves had followed that protection on earlier rate changes. The supplier then raised the rate sharply with one day's notice and did not protect the buyer's already-committed volume. The buyer contends the stipulated trade usage and the prior course of dealing supplement the bare price term; the supplier contends the express posted-rate term cannot be contradicted by usage. The escrow simulation holds the disputed difference on the committed volume.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 20000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Larkspur Ventures", "type": "entity", "position": "Our long-term supply deal priced at the supplier's posted rate at delivery, but for years the supplier protected the rate on volume we had already committed to jobs, exactly as the stipulated industry practice requires. The supplier then raised the rate sharply with one day's notice and refused to protect the volume we had already committed. Both the stipulated trade practice and our own prior course of dealing made rate protection part of this contract, and applying the increase to already-committed work breached it. We are owed the difference on that committed volume.", "evidence": [ "The buyer's calculation of the disputed difference on the committed volume", "The one-day-notice rate increase and its effect on the buyer's already-committed volume", "Records of the parties' own prior conduct protecting committed volume on earlier rate changes", "The stipulated fact of a rate-protection practice across this industry for already-committed volume", "The written supply contract and its posted-rate-at-delivery term" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Copperfield Labs", "type": "entity", "position": "The contract set the price at the posted rate at delivery, full stop. There is no rate-protection clause in the written deal, and a general industry practice cannot contradict an express price term the parties actually wrote down. When I posted a new rate, that was the contract price at delivery for everything delivered after it. I owe nothing beyond honoring the posted-rate term as written, and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "The posted new rate and the delivery dates it applied to", "The absence of any rate-protection clause in the written deal", "The written supply contract and its posted-rate-at-delivery term" ] }, "facts": "A buyer and supplier had a long-term supply contract pricing at the supplier's posted rate at delivery. It is stipulated in the record that the relevant industry protects the rate on volume a buyer has already committed to jobs, and that the parties themselves had followed that protection on earlier rate changes. The supplier then raised the rate sharply with one day's notice and did not protect the buyer's already-committed volume. The buyer contends the stipulated trade usage and the prior course of dealing supplement the bare price term; the supplier contends the express posted-rate term cannot be contradicted by usage. The escrow simulation holds the disputed difference on the committed volume.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 10000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-018", "changeType": "amount_scale", "change": "Every USDC amount was multiplied by three; proportions stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Committed Buyer", "type": "entity", "position": "Our long-term supply deal priced at the supplier's posted rate at delivery, but for years the supplier protected the rate on volume we had already committed to jobs, exactly as the stipulated industry practice requires. The supplier then raised the rate sharply with one day's notice and refused to protect the volume we had already committed. Both the stipulated trade practice and our own prior course of dealing made rate protection part of this contract, and applying the increase to already-committed work breached it. We are owed the difference on that committed volume.", "evidence": [ "The written supply contract and its posted-rate-at-delivery term", "The stipulated fact of a rate-protection practice across this industry for already-committed volume", "Records of the parties' own prior conduct protecting committed volume on earlier rate changes", "The one-day-notice rate increase and its effect on the buyer's already-committed volume", "The buyer's calculation of the disputed difference on the committed volume" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Supplier", "type": "entity", "position": "The contract set the price at the posted rate at delivery, full stop. There is no rate-protection clause in the written deal, and a general industry practice cannot contradict an express price term the parties actually wrote down. When I posted a new rate, that was the contract price at delivery for everything delivered after it. I owe nothing beyond honoring the posted-rate term as written, and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "The written supply contract and its posted-rate-at-delivery term", "The absence of any rate-protection clause in the written deal", "The posted new rate and the delivery dates it applied to" ] }, "facts": "A buyer and supplier had a long-term supply contract pricing at the supplier's posted rate at delivery. It is stipulated in the record that the relevant industry protects the rate on volume a buyer has already committed to jobs, and that the parties themselves had followed that protection on earlier rate changes. The supplier then raised the rate sharply with one day's notice and did not protect the buyer's already-committed volume. The buyer contends the stipulated trade usage and the prior course of dealing supplement the bare price term; the supplier contends the express posted-rate term cannot be contradicted by usage. The escrow simulation holds the disputed difference on the committed volume.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 20000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Committed Buyer", "type": "entity", "position": "Our long-term supply deal priced at the supplier's posted rate at delivery, but for years the supplier protected the rate on volume we had already committed to jobs, exactly as the stipulated industry practice requires. The supplier then raised the rate sharply with one day's notice and refused to protect the volume we had already committed. Both the stipulated trade practice and our own prior course of dealing made rate protection part of this contract, and applying the increase to already-committed work breached it. We are owed the difference on that committed volume.", "evidence": [ "The written supply contract and its posted-rate-at-delivery term", "The stipulated fact of a rate-protection practice across this industry for already-committed volume", "Records of the parties' own prior conduct protecting committed volume on earlier rate changes", "The one-day-notice rate increase and its effect on the buyer's already-committed volume", "The buyer's calculation of the disputed difference on the committed volume" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Supplier", "type": "entity", "position": "The contract set the price at the posted rate at delivery, full stop. There is no rate-protection clause in the written deal, and a general industry practice cannot contradict an express price term the parties actually wrote down. When I posted a new rate, that was the contract price at delivery for everything delivered after it. I owe nothing beyond honoring the posted-rate term as written, and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "The written supply contract and its posted-rate-at-delivery term", "The absence of any rate-protection clause in the written deal", "The posted new rate and the delivery dates it applied to" ] }, "facts": "A buyer and supplier had a long-term supply contract pricing at the supplier's posted rate at delivery. It is stipulated in the record that the relevant industry protects the rate on volume a buyer has already committed to jobs, and that the parties themselves had followed that protection on earlier rate changes. The supplier then raised the rate sharply with one day's notice and did not protect the buyer's already-committed volume. The buyer contends the stipulated trade usage and the prior course of dealing supplement the bare price term; the supplier contends the express posted-rate term cannot be contradicted by usage. The escrow simulation holds the disputed difference on the committed volume.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 60000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-019", "changeType": "party_names", "change": "Party names changed; every other fact stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Departing Provider", "type": "human", "position": "I was engaged for a fixed-scope project at a fixed fee and completed roughly four-fifths of it before I left early. The client received and kept the benefit of all that work — it is real, usable output they still hold. Denying me every cent for the whole engagement because I did not finish the last stretch is a forfeiture far out of proportion to leaving early, especially since the client has not shown any loss from my departure. I should recover the reasonable value of the work actually delivered.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-scope, fixed-fee engagement agreement", "A record showing roughly 79% of the scope was completed and delivered", "Confirmation the client retained and used the delivered work", "The absence of any client evidence of loss caused by the early departure" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Engaging Client", "type": "human", "position": "The deal was a fixed scope for a fixed fee: completion of the whole project was the condition of payment. The provider walked away early without my agreement and left the project unfinished, so the condition for the fee was never met. I contracted for a finished deliverable, not a fraction of one, and I should not have to pay for an engagement the provider chose to abandon. The escrowed fee should return to me.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-scope, fixed-fee engagement agreement stating payment on completion", "A record that the provider left before completing the scope", "Correspondence showing the departure was without the client's consent" ] }, "facts": "A provider agreed to a fixed-scope project for a fixed fee and left after completing roughly 79% of the scope, without the client's consent. The client retained and used the delivered work and put forward no evidence of loss caused by the early departure. The provider seeks the reasonable value of the work performed; the client contends that completion of the entire scope was a condition precedent to any payment, so the provider recovers nothing. The escrow simulation holds the fixed fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 12000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Meridian Holdings", "type": "human", "position": "I was engaged for a fixed-scope project at a fixed fee and completed roughly four-fifths of it before I left early. The client received and kept the benefit of all that work — it is real, usable output they still hold. Denying me every cent for the whole engagement because I did not finish the last stretch is a forfeiture far out of proportion to leaving early, especially since the client has not shown any loss from my departure. I should recover the reasonable value of the work actually delivered.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-scope, fixed-fee engagement agreement", "A record showing roughly 79% of the scope was completed and delivered", "Confirmation the client retained and used the delivered work", "The absence of any client evidence of loss caused by the early departure" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Quarrystone Works", "type": "human", "position": "The deal was a fixed scope for a fixed fee: completion of the whole project was the condition of payment. The provider walked away early without my agreement and left the project unfinished, so the condition for the fee was never met. I contracted for a finished deliverable, not a fraction of one, and I should not have to pay for an engagement the provider chose to abandon. The escrowed fee should return to me.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-scope, fixed-fee engagement agreement stating payment on completion", "A record that the provider left before completing the scope", "Correspondence showing the departure was without the client's consent" ] }, "facts": "A provider agreed to a fixed-scope project for a fixed fee and left after completing roughly 79% of the scope, without the client's consent. The client retained and used the delivered work and put forward no evidence of loss caused by the early departure. The provider seeks the reasonable value of the work performed; the client contends that completion of the entire scope was a condition precedent to any payment, so the provider recovers nothing. The escrow simulation holds the fixed fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 12000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "split", "allocation": { "claimant": 0.79, "respondent": 0.21 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "split", "allocation": { "claimant": 0.79, "respondent": 0.21 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-020", "changeType": "party_names_amounts_evidence_order", "change": "Party names changed, every amount was halved, and evidence lists were reversed.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Departing Provider", "type": "human", "position": "I was engaged for a fixed-scope project at a fixed fee and completed roughly four-fifths of it before I left early. The client received and kept the benefit of all that work — it is real, usable output they still hold. Denying me every cent for the whole engagement because I did not finish the last stretch is a forfeiture far out of proportion to leaving early, especially since the client has not shown any loss from my departure. I should recover the reasonable value of the work actually delivered.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-scope, fixed-fee engagement agreement", "A record showing roughly 79% of the scope was completed and delivered", "Confirmation the client retained and used the delivered work", "The absence of any client evidence of loss caused by the early departure" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Engaging Client", "type": "human", "position": "The deal was a fixed scope for a fixed fee: completion of the whole project was the condition of payment. The provider walked away early without my agreement and left the project unfinished, so the condition for the fee was never met. I contracted for a finished deliverable, not a fraction of one, and I should not have to pay for an engagement the provider chose to abandon. The escrowed fee should return to me.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-scope, fixed-fee engagement agreement stating payment on completion", "A record that the provider left before completing the scope", "Correspondence showing the departure was without the client's consent" ] }, "facts": "A provider agreed to a fixed-scope project for a fixed fee and left after completing roughly 79% of the scope, without the client's consent. The client retained and used the delivered work and put forward no evidence of loss caused by the early departure. The provider seeks the reasonable value of the work performed; the client contends that completion of the entire scope was a condition precedent to any payment, so the provider recovers nothing. The escrow simulation holds the fixed fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 12000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Larkspur Ventures", "type": "human", "position": "I was engaged for a fixed-scope project at a fixed fee and completed roughly four-fifths of it before I left early. The client received and kept the benefit of all that work — it is real, usable output they still hold. Denying me every cent for the whole engagement because I did not finish the last stretch is a forfeiture far out of proportion to leaving early, especially since the client has not shown any loss from my departure. I should recover the reasonable value of the work actually delivered.", "evidence": [ "The absence of any client evidence of loss caused by the early departure", "Confirmation the client retained and used the delivered work", "A record showing roughly 79% of the scope was completed and delivered", "The fixed-scope, fixed-fee engagement agreement" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Copperfield Labs", "type": "human", "position": "The deal was a fixed scope for a fixed fee: completion of the whole project was the condition of payment. The provider walked away early without my agreement and left the project unfinished, so the condition for the fee was never met. I contracted for a finished deliverable, not a fraction of one, and I should not have to pay for an engagement the provider chose to abandon. The escrowed fee should return to me.", "evidence": [ "Correspondence showing the departure was without the client's consent", "A record that the provider left before completing the scope", "The fixed-scope, fixed-fee engagement agreement stating payment on completion" ] }, "facts": "A provider agreed to a fixed-scope project for a fixed fee and left after completing roughly 79% of the scope, without the client's consent. The client retained and used the delivered work and put forward no evidence of loss caused by the early departure. The provider seeks the reasonable value of the work performed; the client contends that completion of the entire scope was a condition precedent to any payment, so the provider recovers nothing. The escrow simulation holds the fixed fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 6000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "split", "allocation": { "claimant": 0.79, "respondent": 0.21 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "split", "allocation": { "claimant": 0.79, "respondent": 0.21 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-021", "changeType": "amount_scale", "change": "Every USDC amount was multiplied by three; proportions stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Departing Provider", "type": "human", "position": "I was engaged for a fixed-scope project at a fixed fee and completed roughly four-fifths of it before I left early. The client received and kept the benefit of all that work — it is real, usable output they still hold. Denying me every cent for the whole engagement because I did not finish the last stretch is a forfeiture far out of proportion to leaving early, especially since the client has not shown any loss from my departure. I should recover the reasonable value of the work actually delivered.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-scope, fixed-fee engagement agreement", "A record showing roughly 79% of the scope was completed and delivered", "Confirmation the client retained and used the delivered work", "The absence of any client evidence of loss caused by the early departure" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Engaging Client", "type": "human", "position": "The deal was a fixed scope for a fixed fee: completion of the whole project was the condition of payment. The provider walked away early without my agreement and left the project unfinished, so the condition for the fee was never met. I contracted for a finished deliverable, not a fraction of one, and I should not have to pay for an engagement the provider chose to abandon. The escrowed fee should return to me.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-scope, fixed-fee engagement agreement stating payment on completion", "A record that the provider left before completing the scope", "Correspondence showing the departure was without the client's consent" ] }, "facts": "A provider agreed to a fixed-scope project for a fixed fee and left after completing roughly 79% of the scope, without the client's consent. The client retained and used the delivered work and put forward no evidence of loss caused by the early departure. The provider seeks the reasonable value of the work performed; the client contends that completion of the entire scope was a condition precedent to any payment, so the provider recovers nothing. The escrow simulation holds the fixed fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 12000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Departing Provider", "type": "human", "position": "I was engaged for a fixed-scope project at a fixed fee and completed roughly four-fifths of it before I left early. The client received and kept the benefit of all that work — it is real, usable output they still hold. Denying me every cent for the whole engagement because I did not finish the last stretch is a forfeiture far out of proportion to leaving early, especially since the client has not shown any loss from my departure. I should recover the reasonable value of the work actually delivered.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-scope, fixed-fee engagement agreement", "A record showing roughly 79% of the scope was completed and delivered", "Confirmation the client retained and used the delivered work", "The absence of any client evidence of loss caused by the early departure" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Engaging Client", "type": "human", "position": "The deal was a fixed scope for a fixed fee: completion of the whole project was the condition of payment. The provider walked away early without my agreement and left the project unfinished, so the condition for the fee was never met. I contracted for a finished deliverable, not a fraction of one, and I should not have to pay for an engagement the provider chose to abandon. The escrowed fee should return to me.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-scope, fixed-fee engagement agreement stating payment on completion", "A record that the provider left before completing the scope", "Correspondence showing the departure was without the client's consent" ] }, "facts": "A provider agreed to a fixed-scope project for a fixed fee and left after completing roughly 79% of the scope, without the client's consent. The client retained and used the delivered work and put forward no evidence of loss caused by the early departure. The provider seeks the reasonable value of the work performed; the client contends that completion of the entire scope was a condition precedent to any payment, so the provider recovers nothing. The escrow simulation holds the fixed fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 36000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "split", "allocation": { "claimant": 0.79, "respondent": 0.21 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "split", "allocation": { "claimant": 0.79, "respondent": 0.21 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-022", "changeType": "party_names", "change": "Party names changed; every other fact stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Ordering Buyer", "type": "entity", "position": "Our order says in plain terms that no change to it is binding unless it is a writing signed by our authorized representative. The delivery dates were part of that order, and there was never any signed change to them. The supplier gave later delivery dates only verbally and then missed them, so it is in breach of the schedule we actually agreed to in writing. The written terms govern and the supplier is liable.", "evidence": [ "The purchase orders, each stating no modification is binding unless in a writing signed by the buyer's authorized representative", "The written acknowledgments for the early orders versus the merely oral delivery dates for the later ones", "The record of the missed delivery dates", "Confirmation that no signed change order to the delivery dates was ever issued" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Supplying Vendor", "type": "human", "position": "The parties changed the delivery schedule by agreement and by how they actually dealt with each other on the later orders. The buyer knew about and went along with the revised dates through our ongoing course of conduct, which operated as a modification or at least a waiver of the signed-writing requirement. It would be unfair to let the buyer accept the revised working arrangement and then fall back on the clause to claim breach. I am not liable on the original dates and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "Records of the parties' conduct and communications around the revised delivery dates", "Evidence the buyer proceeded with the later orders on the revised schedule", "The oral delivery dates the parties operated under for the later orders" ] }, "facts": "A buyer's purchase orders each stated that no modification was binding unless in a writing signed by the buyer's authorized representative. For later orders, the vendor gave delivery dates orally rather than in a signed writing, and then missed them. The buyer sued on the original written schedule; the vendor contends the parties changed the schedule by oral agreement and course of conduct, operating as a modification or a waiver of the clause. The governing question is whether an oral or conduct-based change survives a no-oral-modification clause, and if not, whether conduct can still waive the clause and on what showing. The escrow simulation holds the disputed milestone.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 15000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Meridian Holdings", "type": "entity", "position": "Our order says in plain terms that no change to it is binding unless it is a writing signed by our authorized representative. The delivery dates were part of that order, and there was never any signed change to them. The supplier gave later delivery dates only verbally and then missed them, so it is in breach of the schedule we actually agreed to in writing. The written terms govern and the supplier is liable.", "evidence": [ "The purchase orders, each stating no modification is binding unless in a writing signed by the buyer's authorized representative", "The written acknowledgments for the early orders versus the merely oral delivery dates for the later ones", "The record of the missed delivery dates", "Confirmation that no signed change order to the delivery dates was ever issued" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Quarrystone Works", "type": "human", "position": "The parties changed the delivery schedule by agreement and by how they actually dealt with each other on the later orders. The buyer knew about and went along with the revised dates through our ongoing course of conduct, which operated as a modification or at least a waiver of the signed-writing requirement. It would be unfair to let the buyer accept the revised working arrangement and then fall back on the clause to claim breach. I am not liable on the original dates and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "Records of the parties' conduct and communications around the revised delivery dates", "Evidence the buyer proceeded with the later orders on the revised schedule", "The oral delivery dates the parties operated under for the later orders" ] }, "facts": "A buyer's purchase orders each stated that no modification was binding unless in a writing signed by the buyer's authorized representative. For later orders, the vendor gave delivery dates orally rather than in a signed writing, and then missed them. The buyer sued on the original written schedule; the vendor contends the parties changed the schedule by oral agreement and course of conduct, operating as a modification or a waiver of the clause. The governing question is whether an oral or conduct-based change survives a no-oral-modification clause, and if not, whether conduct can still waive the clause and on what showing. The escrow simulation holds the disputed milestone.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 15000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-023", "changeType": "party_names_amounts_evidence_order", "change": "Party names changed, every amount was halved, and evidence lists were reversed.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Ordering Buyer", "type": "entity", "position": "Our order says in plain terms that no change to it is binding unless it is a writing signed by our authorized representative. The delivery dates were part of that order, and there was never any signed change to them. The supplier gave later delivery dates only verbally and then missed them, so it is in breach of the schedule we actually agreed to in writing. The written terms govern and the supplier is liable.", "evidence": [ "The purchase orders, each stating no modification is binding unless in a writing signed by the buyer's authorized representative", "The written acknowledgments for the early orders versus the merely oral delivery dates for the later ones", "The record of the missed delivery dates", "Confirmation that no signed change order to the delivery dates was ever issued" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Supplying Vendor", "type": "human", "position": "The parties changed the delivery schedule by agreement and by how they actually dealt with each other on the later orders. The buyer knew about and went along with the revised dates through our ongoing course of conduct, which operated as a modification or at least a waiver of the signed-writing requirement. It would be unfair to let the buyer accept the revised working arrangement and then fall back on the clause to claim breach. I am not liable on the original dates and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "Records of the parties' conduct and communications around the revised delivery dates", "Evidence the buyer proceeded with the later orders on the revised schedule", "The oral delivery dates the parties operated under for the later orders" ] }, "facts": "A buyer's purchase orders each stated that no modification was binding unless in a writing signed by the buyer's authorized representative. For later orders, the vendor gave delivery dates orally rather than in a signed writing, and then missed them. The buyer sued on the original written schedule; the vendor contends the parties changed the schedule by oral agreement and course of conduct, operating as a modification or a waiver of the clause. The governing question is whether an oral or conduct-based change survives a no-oral-modification clause, and if not, whether conduct can still waive the clause and on what showing. The escrow simulation holds the disputed milestone.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 15000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Larkspur Ventures", "type": "entity", "position": "Our order says in plain terms that no change to it is binding unless it is a writing signed by our authorized representative. The delivery dates were part of that order, and there was never any signed change to them. The supplier gave later delivery dates only verbally and then missed them, so it is in breach of the schedule we actually agreed to in writing. The written terms govern and the supplier is liable.", "evidence": [ "Confirmation that no signed change order to the delivery dates was ever issued", "The record of the missed delivery dates", "The written acknowledgments for the early orders versus the merely oral delivery dates for the later ones", "The purchase orders, each stating no modification is binding unless in a writing signed by the buyer's authorized representative" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Copperfield Labs", "type": "human", "position": "The parties changed the delivery schedule by agreement and by how they actually dealt with each other on the later orders. The buyer knew about and went along with the revised dates through our ongoing course of conduct, which operated as a modification or at least a waiver of the signed-writing requirement. It would be unfair to let the buyer accept the revised working arrangement and then fall back on the clause to claim breach. I am not liable on the original dates and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "The oral delivery dates the parties operated under for the later orders", "Evidence the buyer proceeded with the later orders on the revised schedule", "Records of the parties' conduct and communications around the revised delivery dates" ] }, "facts": "A buyer's purchase orders each stated that no modification was binding unless in a writing signed by the buyer's authorized representative. For later orders, the vendor gave delivery dates orally rather than in a signed writing, and then missed them. The buyer sued on the original written schedule; the vendor contends the parties changed the schedule by oral agreement and course of conduct, operating as a modification or a waiver of the clause. The governing question is whether an oral or conduct-based change survives a no-oral-modification clause, and if not, whether conduct can still waive the clause and on what showing. The escrow simulation holds the disputed milestone.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 7500, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-024", "changeType": "amount_scale", "change": "Every USDC amount was multiplied by three; proportions stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Ordering Buyer", "type": "entity", "position": "Our order says in plain terms that no change to it is binding unless it is a writing signed by our authorized representative. The delivery dates were part of that order, and there was never any signed change to them. The supplier gave later delivery dates only verbally and then missed them, so it is in breach of the schedule we actually agreed to in writing. The written terms govern and the supplier is liable.", "evidence": [ "The purchase orders, each stating no modification is binding unless in a writing signed by the buyer's authorized representative", "The written acknowledgments for the early orders versus the merely oral delivery dates for the later ones", "The record of the missed delivery dates", "Confirmation that no signed change order to the delivery dates was ever issued" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Supplying Vendor", "type": "human", "position": "The parties changed the delivery schedule by agreement and by how they actually dealt with each other on the later orders. The buyer knew about and went along with the revised dates through our ongoing course of conduct, which operated as a modification or at least a waiver of the signed-writing requirement. It would be unfair to let the buyer accept the revised working arrangement and then fall back on the clause to claim breach. I am not liable on the original dates and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "Records of the parties' conduct and communications around the revised delivery dates", "Evidence the buyer proceeded with the later orders on the revised schedule", "The oral delivery dates the parties operated under for the later orders" ] }, "facts": "A buyer's purchase orders each stated that no modification was binding unless in a writing signed by the buyer's authorized representative. For later orders, the vendor gave delivery dates orally rather than in a signed writing, and then missed them. The buyer sued on the original written schedule; the vendor contends the parties changed the schedule by oral agreement and course of conduct, operating as a modification or a waiver of the clause. The governing question is whether an oral or conduct-based change survives a no-oral-modification clause, and if not, whether conduct can still waive the clause and on what showing. The escrow simulation holds the disputed milestone.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 15000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Ordering Buyer", "type": "entity", "position": "Our order says in plain terms that no change to it is binding unless it is a writing signed by our authorized representative. The delivery dates were part of that order, and there was never any signed change to them. The supplier gave later delivery dates only verbally and then missed them, so it is in breach of the schedule we actually agreed to in writing. The written terms govern and the supplier is liable.", "evidence": [ "The purchase orders, each stating no modification is binding unless in a writing signed by the buyer's authorized representative", "The written acknowledgments for the early orders versus the merely oral delivery dates for the later ones", "The record of the missed delivery dates", "Confirmation that no signed change order to the delivery dates was ever issued" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Supplying Vendor", "type": "human", "position": "The parties changed the delivery schedule by agreement and by how they actually dealt with each other on the later orders. The buyer knew about and went along with the revised dates through our ongoing course of conduct, which operated as a modification or at least a waiver of the signed-writing requirement. It would be unfair to let the buyer accept the revised working arrangement and then fall back on the clause to claim breach. I am not liable on the original dates and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "Records of the parties' conduct and communications around the revised delivery dates", "Evidence the buyer proceeded with the later orders on the revised schedule", "The oral delivery dates the parties operated under for the later orders" ] }, "facts": "A buyer's purchase orders each stated that no modification was binding unless in a writing signed by the buyer's authorized representative. For later orders, the vendor gave delivery dates orally rather than in a signed writing, and then missed them. The buyer sued on the original written schedule; the vendor contends the parties changed the schedule by oral agreement and course of conduct, operating as a modification or a waiver of the clause. The governing question is whether an oral or conduct-based change survives a no-oral-modification clause, and if not, whether conduct can still waive the clause and on what showing. The escrow simulation holds the disputed milestone.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 45000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-025", "changeType": "party_names", "change": "Party names changed; every other fact stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Fixed-Fee Client", "type": "human", "position": "The provider finished the work but two specific items came back defective, and I am not comfortable paying the outstanding balance for defective work. I withheld a substantial amount until the deliverable is properly right. Until the defects are addressed, I do not think the contract was properly performed and I should not have to release the balance I am holding.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-fee contract for the full scope of work", "Identification of the two specific defective items", "An agreed figure of 300 USDC for the modest cost to remedy the two items", "A record of the substantial balance the client is withholding" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Fixed-Fee Provider", "type": "human", "position": "I substantially completed everything the contract called for; what remains are two minor, clearly quantifiable defects with a small, agreed cure cost. The client is withholding far more than that cure cost, which is not justified. A completed job with a couple of small snags does not forfeit the whole price. I am owed the balance less the modest cost of putting those two items right.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-fee contract for the full scope of work", "Delivery records showing the full scope was completed", "The agreed 300 USDC cure cost for the two defective items", "Evidence the amount withheld far exceeds the cure cost" ] }, "facts": "A provider completed a fixed-fee engagement covering the full scope, but two specific items were defective, with a small agreed cost to remedy them. The client withheld a substantial balance — far more than the cure cost — contending the work was not properly performed. The provider contends the defects are minor and collateral and that a lump-sum-on-completion engagement is not forfeited by small snags, so the price is due less the cure cost. The escrow simulation holds the withheld balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3500, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Meridian Holdings", "type": "human", "position": "The provider finished the work but two specific items came back defective, and I am not comfortable paying the outstanding balance for defective work. I withheld a substantial amount until the deliverable is properly right. Until the defects are addressed, I do not think the contract was properly performed and I should not have to release the balance I am holding.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-fee contract for the full scope of work", "Identification of the two specific defective items", "An agreed figure of 300 USDC for the modest cost to remedy the two items", "A record of the substantial balance the client is withholding" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Quarrystone Works", "type": "human", "position": "I substantially completed everything the contract called for; what remains are two minor, clearly quantifiable defects with a small, agreed cure cost. The client is withholding far more than that cure cost, which is not justified. A completed job with a couple of small snags does not forfeit the whole price. I am owed the balance less the modest cost of putting those two items right.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-fee contract for the full scope of work", "Delivery records showing the full scope was completed", "The agreed 300 USDC cure cost for the two defective items", "Evidence the amount withheld far exceeds the cure cost" ] }, "facts": "A provider completed a fixed-fee engagement covering the full scope, but two specific items were defective, with a small agreed cost to remedy them. The client withheld a substantial balance — far more than the cure cost — contending the work was not properly performed. The provider contends the defects are minor and collateral and that a lump-sum-on-completion engagement is not forfeited by small snags, so the price is due less the cure cost. The escrow simulation holds the withheld balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3500, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-026", "changeType": "party_names_amounts_evidence_order", "change": "Party names changed, every amount was halved, and evidence lists were reversed.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Fixed-Fee Client", "type": "human", "position": "The provider finished the work but two specific items came back defective, and I am not comfortable paying the outstanding balance for defective work. I withheld a substantial amount until the deliverable is properly right. Until the defects are addressed, I do not think the contract was properly performed and I should not have to release the balance I am holding.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-fee contract for the full scope of work", "Identification of the two specific defective items", "An agreed figure of 300 USDC for the modest cost to remedy the two items", "A record of the substantial balance the client is withholding" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Fixed-Fee Provider", "type": "human", "position": "I substantially completed everything the contract called for; what remains are two minor, clearly quantifiable defects with a small, agreed cure cost. The client is withholding far more than that cure cost, which is not justified. A completed job with a couple of small snags does not forfeit the whole price. I am owed the balance less the modest cost of putting those two items right.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-fee contract for the full scope of work", "Delivery records showing the full scope was completed", "The agreed 300 USDC cure cost for the two defective items", "Evidence the amount withheld far exceeds the cure cost" ] }, "facts": "A provider completed a fixed-fee engagement covering the full scope, but two specific items were defective, with a small agreed cost to remedy them. The client withheld a substantial balance — far more than the cure cost — contending the work was not properly performed. The provider contends the defects are minor and collateral and that a lump-sum-on-completion engagement is not forfeited by small snags, so the price is due less the cure cost. The escrow simulation holds the withheld balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3500, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Larkspur Ventures", "type": "human", "position": "The provider finished the work but two specific items came back defective, and I am not comfortable paying the outstanding balance for defective work. I withheld a substantial amount until the deliverable is properly right. Until the defects are addressed, I do not think the contract was properly performed and I should not have to release the balance I am holding.", "evidence": [ "A record of the substantial balance the client is withholding", "An agreed figure of 150 USDC for the modest cost to remedy the two items", "Identification of the two specific defective items", "The fixed-fee contract for the full scope of work" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Copperfield Labs", "type": "human", "position": "I substantially completed everything the contract called for; what remains are two minor, clearly quantifiable defects with a small, agreed cure cost. The client is withholding far more than that cure cost, which is not justified. A completed job with a couple of small snags does not forfeit the whole price. I am owed the balance less the modest cost of putting those two items right.", "evidence": [ "Evidence the amount withheld far exceeds the cure cost", "The agreed 150 USDC cure cost for the two defective items", "Delivery records showing the full scope was completed", "The fixed-fee contract for the full scope of work" ] }, "facts": "A provider completed a fixed-fee engagement covering the full scope, but two specific items were defective, with a small agreed cost to remedy them. The client withheld a substantial balance — far more than the cure cost — contending the work was not properly performed. The provider contends the defects are minor and collateral and that a lump-sum-on-completion engagement is not forfeited by small snags, so the price is due less the cure cost. The escrow simulation holds the withheld balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 1750, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-027", "changeType": "amount_scale", "change": "Every USDC amount was multiplied by three; proportions stayed the same.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Fixed-Fee Client", "type": "human", "position": "The provider finished the work but two specific items came back defective, and I am not comfortable paying the outstanding balance for defective work. I withheld a substantial amount until the deliverable is properly right. Until the defects are addressed, I do not think the contract was properly performed and I should not have to release the balance I am holding.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-fee contract for the full scope of work", "Identification of the two specific defective items", "An agreed figure of 300 USDC for the modest cost to remedy the two items", "A record of the substantial balance the client is withholding" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Fixed-Fee Provider", "type": "human", "position": "I substantially completed everything the contract called for; what remains are two minor, clearly quantifiable defects with a small, agreed cure cost. The client is withholding far more than that cure cost, which is not justified. A completed job with a couple of small snags does not forfeit the whole price. I am owed the balance less the modest cost of putting those two items right.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-fee contract for the full scope of work", "Delivery records showing the full scope was completed", "The agreed 300 USDC cure cost for the two defective items", "Evidence the amount withheld far exceeds the cure cost" ] }, "facts": "A provider completed a fixed-fee engagement covering the full scope, but two specific items were defective, with a small agreed cost to remedy them. The client withheld a substantial balance — far more than the cure cost — contending the work was not properly performed. The provider contends the defects are minor and collateral and that a lump-sum-on-completion engagement is not forfeited by small snags, so the price is due less the cure cost. The escrow simulation holds the withheld balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3500, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Fixed-Fee Client", "type": "human", "position": "The provider finished the work but two specific items came back defective, and I am not comfortable paying the outstanding balance for defective work. I withheld a substantial amount until the deliverable is properly right. Until the defects are addressed, I do not think the contract was properly performed and I should not have to release the balance I am holding.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-fee contract for the full scope of work", "Identification of the two specific defective items", "An agreed figure of 900 USDC for the modest cost to remedy the two items", "A record of the substantial balance the client is withholding" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Fixed-Fee Provider", "type": "human", "position": "I substantially completed everything the contract called for; what remains are two minor, clearly quantifiable defects with a small, agreed cure cost. The client is withholding far more than that cure cost, which is not justified. A completed job with a couple of small snags does not forfeit the whole price. I am owed the balance less the modest cost of putting those two items right.", "evidence": [ "The fixed-fee contract for the full scope of work", "Delivery records showing the full scope was completed", "The agreed 900 USDC cure cost for the two defective items", "Evidence the amount withheld far exceeds the cure cost" ] }, "facts": "A provider completed a fixed-fee engagement covering the full scope, but two specific items were defective, with a small agreed cost to remedy them. The client withheld a substantial balance — far more than the cure cost — contending the work was not properly performed. The provider contends the defects are minor and collateral and that a lump-sum-on-completion engagement is not forfeited by small snags, so the price is due less the cure cost. The escrow simulation holds the withheld balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 10500, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-028", "changeType": "filing_position", "change": "The parties exchanged filing positions. The modified decision is mapped back to the original parties.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Commissioning Client", "type": "entity", "position": "Our build spec named a specific pump component by brand for the fluid-handling module, and the contractor installed a different brand instead. We paid the milestones as work progressed but are holding the final balance because we did not get the component we specified. We asked for the named part or nothing, and swapping it now would mean tearing apart finished, integrated work. We should not have to pay the balance for a build that departs from an express written requirement.", "evidence": [ "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module", "Build records showing a different brand of equivalent grade was installed and sealed inside the finished assembly", "Correspondence in which the client demanded the named component or withheld the final balance", "A quote for the labor to tear out and re-integrate the finished module to swap the component" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Build Contractor", "type": "entity", "position": "The component I installed is the same grade, weight, and performance as the one named; the brand name was a shorthand for that quality standard, not the point of the job. The substitution was inadvertent, and it was only noticed after the module was closed up, so the whole thing works exactly as intended. Ripping out finished, integrated work to swap one equivalent part would cost far more than any difference in value, which is essentially nil. The final balance is owed.", "evidence": [ "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module", "Test data showing the installed component matches the named one on grade, weight, and performance", "Evidence that the named brand was specified to guarantee a galvanized standard grade, achievable by several makers", "A valuation showing no measurable difference in the finished module's value between the two brands" ] }, "facts": "A client commissioned a fabrication build under a written spec that named a specific pump-component brand for one module. The contractor installed a component of equivalent grade, weight, and performance from a different maker; the deviation was inadvertent and was noticed only after the module was closed and integrated. Replacing the component would require dismantling finished work at substantial cost, while the difference in the module's value between the two brands is negligible. The client paid the earlier milestones and is withholding the final balance, demanding the named brand. The escrow simulation holds the withheld final balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3500, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Build Contractor", "type": "entity", "position": "The component I installed is the same grade, weight, and performance as the one named; the brand name was a shorthand for that quality standard, not the point of the job. The substitution was inadvertent, and it was only noticed after the module was closed up, so the whole thing works exactly as intended. Ripping out finished, integrated work to swap one equivalent part would cost far more than any difference in value, which is essentially nil. The final balance is owed.", "evidence": [ "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module", "Test data showing the installed component matches the named one on grade, weight, and performance", "Evidence that the named brand was specified to guarantee a galvanized standard grade, achievable by several makers", "A valuation showing no measurable difference in the finished module's value between the two brands" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Commissioning Client", "type": "entity", "position": "Our build spec named a specific pump component by brand for the fluid-handling module, and the contractor installed a different brand instead. We paid the milestones as work progressed but are holding the final balance because we did not get the component we specified. We asked for the named part or nothing, and swapping it now would mean tearing apart finished, integrated work. We should not have to pay the balance for a build that departs from an express written requirement.", "evidence": [ "The written spec naming the specific pump component brand for the module", "Build records showing a different brand of equivalent grade was installed and sealed inside the finished assembly", "Correspondence in which the client demanded the named component or withheld the final balance", "A quote for the labor to tear out and re-integrate the finished module to swap the component" ] }, "facts": "A client commissioned a fabrication build under a written spec that named a specific pump-component brand for one module. The contractor installed a component of equivalent grade, weight, and performance from a different maker; the deviation was inadvertent and was noticed only after the module was closed and integrated. Replacing the component would require dismantling finished work at substantial cost, while the difference in the module's value between the two brands is negligible. The client paid the earlier milestones and is withholding the final balance, demanding the named brand. The escrow simulation holds the withheld final balance.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3500, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-029", "changeType": "filing_position", "change": "The parties exchanged filing positions. The modified decision is mapped back to the original parties.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Brand Client", "type": "human", "position": "We contracted for a specific, uniform visual treatment and got a streaked, patchy result that reads as inconsistent across the whole asset. Months after an attempted fix, it still has not settled into the uniform look we specified, and the only way to actually get that look is to redo the entire piece. This was a visual deliverable and the visual is exactly what failed. Performance was not substantial, so the fee should not be enforced against us.", "evidence": [ "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment", "Side-by-side captures showing the streaked, non-uniform delivered result", "A record that the inconsistency persisted months after an attempted remedy", "An assessment that the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is a complete redo" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Design Provider", "type": "human", "position": "The deliverable is complete and fully functional — it does everything it is supposed to do and covers the whole scope. Some visual variation is normal and, at most, warrants a small allowance, not withholding the entire fee. The work substantially performs the contract, and I should be paid, subject at most to a minor deduction for the variation the client dislikes.", "evidence": [ "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment", "Delivery records showing the full scope was produced and is functional", "The provider's assessment that the variation is minor and settles over time" ] }, "facts": "A client engaged a provider for a creative deliverable with a written brief specifying a uniform visual treatment. The delivered work is functional and covers the full scope but shows a streaked, non-uniform appearance; months after an attempted fix the inconsistency persisted, and the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is to redo the entire piece. The client refuses to pay; the provider says the work substantially performs and warrants at most a minor allowance. The escrow simulation holds the disputed fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Design Provider", "type": "human", "position": "The deliverable is complete and fully functional — it does everything it is supposed to do and covers the whole scope. Some visual variation is normal and, at most, warrants a small allowance, not withholding the entire fee. The work substantially performs the contract, and I should be paid, subject at most to a minor deduction for the variation the client dislikes.", "evidence": [ "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment", "Delivery records showing the full scope was produced and is functional", "The provider's assessment that the variation is minor and settles over time" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Brand Client", "type": "human", "position": "We contracted for a specific, uniform visual treatment and got a streaked, patchy result that reads as inconsistent across the whole asset. Months after an attempted fix, it still has not settled into the uniform look we specified, and the only way to actually get that look is to redo the entire piece. This was a visual deliverable and the visual is exactly what failed. Performance was not substantial, so the fee should not be enforced against us.", "evidence": [ "The written brief specifying the uniform visual treatment", "Side-by-side captures showing the streaked, non-uniform delivered result", "A record that the inconsistency persisted months after an attempted remedy", "An assessment that the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is a complete redo" ] }, "facts": "A client engaged a provider for a creative deliverable with a written brief specifying a uniform visual treatment. The delivered work is functional and covers the full scope but shows a streaked, non-uniform appearance; months after an attempted fix the inconsistency persisted, and the only way to achieve the specified uniform look is to redo the entire piece. The client refuses to pay; the provider says the work substantially performs and warrants at most a minor allowance. The escrow simulation holds the disputed fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-030", "changeType": "filing_position", "change": "The parties exchanged filing positions. The modified decision is mapped back to the original parties.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Exclusive Agent", "type": "human", "position": "I was given the exclusive right to place and market the other party's work for a set term, splitting the proceeds. By taking on an exclusive, commission-only arrangement, I necessarily undertook to actually work it — that is the only way I ever get paid. Instead, the principal placed the work through other channels and kept the proceeds, cutting me out of the exclusive I was granted. The revenue that should have flowed through me is being withheld, and my share of the pooled proceeds should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The written exclusive-agency agreement and its revenue-split and exclusivity terms", "Records of the principal's outside placements during the exclusive term", "The pooled proceeds from those outside placements, now escrowed", "The commercial structure showing the agent's only compensation was a share of proceeds" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Principal", "type": "human", "position": "The written agreement spells out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contains no promise that the agent would actually market anything. Because the agent promised nothing binding, there was no real commitment on that side, and I remained free to place my work elsewhere and keep what I earned. The escrowed proceeds came from my own outside efforts, not from anything the agent did, so they should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The written exclusive-agency agreement, silent on any effort obligation", "The agreement's exclusivity and accounting clauses", "Records showing the escrowed proceeds came from the principal's own outside placements" ] }, "facts": "A principal granted an agent the exclusive right to place and market the principal's work for a term, splitting proceeds equally. The written agreement set out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contained no express promise that the agent would market anything. During the term the principal placed the work through other channels and retained the proceeds. The agent contends an obligation to use reasonable efforts is inherent in an exclusive, commission-only engagement; the principal contends the absence of any binding promise by the agent left the principal free to earn elsewhere. The escrow simulation holds the pooled proceeds from the outside placements.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 10000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Principal", "type": "human", "position": "The written agreement spells out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contains no promise that the agent would actually market anything. Because the agent promised nothing binding, there was no real commitment on that side, and I remained free to place my work elsewhere and keep what I earned. The escrowed proceeds came from my own outside efforts, not from anything the agent did, so they should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The written exclusive-agency agreement, silent on any effort obligation", "The agreement's exclusivity and accounting clauses", "Records showing the escrowed proceeds came from the principal's own outside placements" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Exclusive Agent", "type": "human", "position": "I was given the exclusive right to place and market the other party's work for a set term, splitting the proceeds. By taking on an exclusive, commission-only arrangement, I necessarily undertook to actually work it — that is the only way I ever get paid. Instead, the principal placed the work through other channels and kept the proceeds, cutting me out of the exclusive I was granted. The revenue that should have flowed through me is being withheld, and my share of the pooled proceeds should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The written exclusive-agency agreement and its revenue-split and exclusivity terms", "Records of the principal's outside placements during the exclusive term", "The pooled proceeds from those outside placements, now escrowed", "The commercial structure showing the agent's only compensation was a share of proceeds" ] }, "facts": "A principal granted an agent the exclusive right to place and market the principal's work for a term, splitting proceeds equally. The written agreement set out the agent's exclusivity and accounting duties but contained no express promise that the agent would market anything. During the term the principal placed the work through other channels and retained the proceeds. The agent contends an obligation to use reasonable efforts is inherent in an exclusive, commission-only engagement; the principal contends the absence of any binding promise by the agent left the principal free to earn elsewhere. The escrow simulation holds the pooled proceeds from the outside placements.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 10000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "split", "allocation": { "claimant": 0.5, "respondent": 0.5 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "split", "allocation": { "claimant": 0.5, "respondent": 0.5 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-031", "changeType": "filing_position", "change": "The parties exchanged filing positions. The modified decision is mapped back to the original parties.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Charged Client", "type": "entity", "position": "The contract has a fee clause that compounds by a fixed percentage every period, and applied literally over time it produces a wildly disproportionate charge that nobody could sensibly have intended. The demand against me now is an absurd number for what this contract is. A clause that spirals into a ruinous figure should be read as capped or otherwise sensible, not applied to the letter to bankrupt one side. I should not have to pay the compounded amount as demanded.", "evidence": [ "The contract and the exact wording of the compounding fee clause", "The arithmetic showing how the fixed-percentage compounding drives the charge to an extreme figure over time", "The comparison between the demanded amount and the modest underlying value of the contract", "Evidence of the commercial context at the time the deal was made" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Charging Provider", "type": "entity", "position": "The clause is clear. It states a starting figure and a fixed compounding rate, and both sides signed up to exactly that. My job is to apply what the parties agreed, not to rewrite a bargain because it turned out worse for one side than they now like. Certainty about what the words mean is the whole point of putting the clause in writing. The accrued fee is due as the clause states, and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "The contract and the exact wording of the compounding fee clause", "The clause's stated starting figure and fixed compounding rate", "The accrued-fee calculation applying the clause as written" ] }, "facts": "A contract contained a fee clause with a starting figure that compounds by a fixed percentage each period. Applied literally over the contract's term, the compounding drives the charge to an extreme figure far exceeding the modest underlying value. The provider demands the accrued fee as the clause states; the client contends the literal reading is commercially absurd and ruinous and that the clause should be read as capped or moderated. The governing question is whether extreme commercial consequences justify departing from clear contractual language. The escrow simulation holds the disputed accrued fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 9000, "currency": "USDC" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Charging Provider", "type": "entity", "position": "The clause is clear. It states a starting figure and a fixed compounding rate, and both sides signed up to exactly that. My job is to apply what the parties agreed, not to rewrite a bargain because it turned out worse for one side than they now like. Certainty about what the words mean is the whole point of putting the clause in writing. The accrued fee is due as the clause states, and the escrow should release to me.", "evidence": [ "The contract and the exact wording of the compounding fee clause", "The clause's stated starting figure and fixed compounding rate", "The accrued-fee calculation applying the clause as written" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Charged Client", "type": "entity", "position": "The contract has a fee clause that compounds by a fixed percentage every period, and applied literally over time it produces a wildly disproportionate charge that nobody could sensibly have intended. The demand against me now is an absurd number for what this contract is. A clause that spirals into a ruinous figure should be read as capped or otherwise sensible, not applied to the letter to bankrupt one side. I should not have to pay the compounded amount as demanded.", "evidence": [ "The contract and the exact wording of the compounding fee clause", "The arithmetic showing how the fixed-percentage compounding drives the charge to an extreme figure over time", "The comparison between the demanded amount and the modest underlying value of the contract", "Evidence of the commercial context at the time the deal was made" ] }, "facts": "A contract contained a fee clause with a starting figure that compounds by a fixed percentage each period. Applied literally over the contract's term, the compounding drives the charge to an extreme figure far exceeding the modest underlying value. The provider demands the accrued fee as the clause states; the client contends the literal reading is commercially absurd and ruinous and that the clause should be read as capped or moderated. The governing question is whether extreme commercial consequences justify departing from clear contractual language. The escrow simulation holds the disputed accrued fee.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 9000, "currency": "USDC" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "respondent_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 0, "respondent": 1 } }, "resultUnchanged": true }, { "comparisonId": "change-032", "changeType": "filing_position", "change": "The parties exchanged filing positions. The modified decision is mapped back to the original parties.", "originalInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Payee", "type": "entity", "position": "The agreement defines the Additional Residential Payment as '23.4% of the price achieved for each Residential Unit in excess of the Minimum Guaranteed Residential Unit Value less the Costs and Incentives.' Conventional syntax applies 23.4% after subtracting the guaranteed value: 23.4% × (net sale proceeds − guaranteed value). On the agreed figures that produces £4,484,862. The clause should be enforced as written, so the disputed £3,587,811 balance should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The agreement and the exact wording of the payment-formula definition", "The calculation 23.4% × (net sale proceeds − guaranteed value) = £4,484,862", "The record that the payer accepted the formula as drafted" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Payer", "type": "entity", "position": "The same clause must be read as an additional upside payment: (23.4% × net sale proceeds) − the guaranteed value. The agreement already gives the payee the guaranteed land value, and the Additional Residential Payment was meant to arise only when 23.4% of net sales exceeded that guarantee. On the agreed figures the payment is £897,051, not £4,484,862. The payee has the £897,051 base amount outside this simulation; the disputed £3,587,811 balance should return to me.", "evidence": [ "The agreement and the exact wording of the payment-formula definition", "The calculation (23.4% × net sale proceeds) − guaranteed value = £897,051", "The agreement's separate guaranteed land-value payment", "The deal documents describing extra payment only if the project performed better than anticipated" ] }, "facts": "The payee already receives a separately calculated guaranteed land value. The disputed Additional Residential Payment was designed to share upside if residential sales outperformed expectations. Its definition reads: '23.4% of the price achieved for each Residential Unit in excess of the Minimum Guaranteed Residential Unit Value less the Costs and Incentives.' Under conventional syntax, 23.4% applies to the excess after subtracting the guarantee, yielding £4,484,862. Under the payer's reading, Costs and Incentives are first deducted from sale price, 23.4% is calculated, and the guaranteed value is then subtracted, yielding £897,051. Contemporaneous deal structure described an additional payment only if the project performed better than anticipated. The payee has the undisputed £897,051 outside this simulation; escrow holds only the £3,587,811 difference.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3587811, "currency": "GBP" }, "modifiedInput": { "partyA": { "name": "Payer", "type": "entity", "position": "The same clause must be read as an additional upside payment: (23.4% × net sale proceeds) − the guaranteed value. The agreement already gives the payee the guaranteed land value, and the Additional Residential Payment was meant to arise only when 23.4% of net sales exceeded that guarantee. On the agreed figures the payment is £897,051, not £4,484,862. The payee has the £897,051 base amount outside this simulation; the disputed £3,587,811 balance should return to me.", "evidence": [ "The agreement and the exact wording of the payment-formula definition", "The calculation (23.4% × net sale proceeds) − guaranteed value = £897,051", "The agreement's separate guaranteed land-value payment", "The deal documents describing extra payment only if the project performed better than anticipated" ] }, "partyB": { "name": "Payee", "type": "entity", "position": "The agreement defines the Additional Residential Payment as '23.4% of the price achieved for each Residential Unit in excess of the Minimum Guaranteed Residential Unit Value less the Costs and Incentives.' Conventional syntax applies 23.4% after subtracting the guaranteed value: 23.4% × (net sale proceeds − guaranteed value). On the agreed figures that produces £4,484,862. The clause should be enforced as written, so the disputed £3,587,811 balance should be released to me.", "evidence": [ "The agreement and the exact wording of the payment-formula definition", "The calculation 23.4% × (net sale proceeds − guaranteed value) = £4,484,862", "The record that the payer accepted the formula as drafted" ] }, "facts": "The payee already receives a separately calculated guaranteed land value. The disputed Additional Residential Payment was designed to share upside if residential sales outperformed expectations. Its definition reads: '23.4% of the price achieved for each Residential Unit in excess of the Minimum Guaranteed Residential Unit Value less the Costs and Incentives.' Under conventional syntax, 23.4% applies to the excess after subtracting the guarantee, yielding £4,484,862. Under the payer's reading, Costs and Incentives are first deducted from sale price, 23.4% is calculated, and the guaranteed value is then subtracted, yielding £897,051. Contemporaneous deal structure described an additional payment only if the project performed better than anticipated. The payee has the undisputed £897,051 outside this simulation; escrow holds only the £3,587,811 difference.", "governingLaw": "platform_native", "amount": 3587811, "currency": "GBP" }, "originalDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "modifiedDecision": { "outcome": "claimant_prevails", "allocation": { "claimant": 1, "respondent": 0 } }, "resultUnchanged": true } ] }