Make an arbitration traceable, challengeable and reviewable

Keep facts, assumptions and preferences distinct

A score helps compare options only when the source, method and uncertainty behind each criterion remain visible. It does not turn a preference into a fact.

• Observed fact
• Testable assumption
• Declared preference
• Missing evidence

Preserve disagreement instead of concealing it

A committee needs to record the credible objection, the evidence that would change the view and the owner of that evidence. Consensus is not proof.

• Objection
• Counter-evidence
• Owner
• Due date

Define the reopening rule with the choice

A recommendation remains conditional when a threshold, risk or dependency can invalidate it. The review date and trigger are part of the decision.

• Threshold
• Accepted risk
• Trigger
• Review date

REVIEWABLE ARBITRATION

Separate evidence, preference and uncertainty

A score is not evidence. Each criterion must retain its definition, unit, source, date and confidence, while weights express an explicit preference of the decision-makers. Missing information remains visible instead of being replaced by a convenient average. The recommendation therefore states which facts support it, which assumptions remain fragile and which preference makes one trade-off acceptable rather than another.

• Comparable options
• Qualified evidence
• Explicit preferences
• Visible unknowns

Keep the recommendation conditional, traceable and open to challenge.

Record disagreement and the rule for reopening

A committee-ready dossier preserves objections, rejected alternatives and accepted risks. It also names the signal, threshold, owner and review date that would reopen the choice. Sensitivity analysis must show whether a plausible change in a weight, estimate or constraint reverses the ranking. A robust decision is not permanent: it is a documented commitment with a monitoring rule and an exit or adaptation path.

• Objections retained
• Sensitivity tested
• Reopening threshold
• Named owner