JudgeAI AI Arbitration Rules

Effective date: 18 September 2026

These Rules govern a fully autonomous, record-based decision procedure. JudgeAI produces and issues the reasoned Final Decision without human adjudication, approval, adoption or signature within the JudgeAI procedure. External audit, including human audit, is confined to identifying and documenting errors under Article 18.

The Final Decision is the completed output of the JudgeAI procedure. The parties separately determine its intended contractual or procedural effect and any external steps needed to give it legal effect under Articles 3 and 22. An external arbitrator, court or other person does not become part of JudgeAI's decision-making process.

Article 1. Scope and Application

1.1. These Rules apply where the parties have agreed in writing to submit a defined dispute to the autonomous JudgeAI procedure. Creation of a Data Room or an invitation alone does not establish another party's consent.

1.2. JudgeAI determines the submitted dispute through its automated decision workflow and issues the Final Decision. The applicable law or rules of law are determined under Article 11.

1.3. The parties may specify the scope of their submission, substantive law, language, timetable and intended legal effect. Their agreement does not appoint a human decision-maker, reviewer or approver within the JudgeAI procedure. Any separate human arbitral or judicial process is an External Legal Arrangement under Article 3.

1.4. Procedural determinations made by JudgeAI under these Rules are made through the automated procedure. Each party shall be treated equally and given a reasonable opportunity to present its case. A person's filing of documents or initiation of an available platform function does not confer authority to select, amend or approve the outcome.

1.5. These Rules may be used for private disputes to the extent permitted by applicable mandatory law. They do not themselves establish that a dispute is arbitrable or that the Final Decision qualifies as an enforceable arbitral award.

Article 2. Definitions

2.1. "JudgeAI" means the electronic platform, Data Room and automated decision workflow providing the procedure described in these Rules.

2.2. "Tribunal", where used in a JudgeAI case document, denotes the automated decision-making function for that procedure. It does not designate a human arbitrator or represent that the software has a legal status reserved to a natural person under applicable law.

2.3. "Data Room" means the electronic case file containing the parties' filings, evidence, notices, communications and procedural record.

2.4. "Request" or "Statement of Claim" means the Claimant's initial filing.

2.5. "Answer" or "Response" means the Respondent's filing presenting its response, defences, objections, counterclaims, set-off and supporting evidence.

2.6. "Reply" means the Claimant's post-Answer submission.

2.7. "Rejoinder" means the Respondent's submission responding to the Reply.

2.8. "Record" means the pleadings, evidence, procedural materials, metadata and entries admitted before record closure, together with any subsequent material admitted under these Rules.

2.9. "Final Decision" means the completed, reasoned determination produced and issued autonomously by JudgeAI. It is final within the JudgeAI procedure, subject to Article 18. The term "Award", if used for that output, does not by itself establish its status as an arbitral award under national law or a treaty.

2.10. "External Audit" means an examination, by a person or an automated tool, limited to identifying and documenting specific errors in the Record, procedure, reasoning, calculation or issued document. An auditor has no authority to decide the dispute, approve the Final Decision or substitute a preferred outcome.

2.11. "External Legal Arrangement" means the parties' separate contractual, arbitral, judicial or other lawful arrangement for using the Final Decision or giving it legal effect.

Article 3. Party Agreement and External Legal Effect

3.1. The parties shall record their consent to the autonomous procedure in writing, including by a valid electronic agreement. They shall identify the dispute and acknowledge that JudgeAI issues its Final Decision without human adjudication, approval or signature within that procedure.

3.2. The agreement should identify the parties, scope of the submission, language, law or rules of law governing the merits, and the intended legal effect of the Final Decision. Any seat of a separate arbitration, external decision-maker, required formalities and means of implementation should also be specified where relevant.

3.3. The parties may agree, subject to applicable law, that the Final Decision will determine contractual obligations, supply the terms of a settlement mechanism agreed in advance, or constitute a required pre-action determination. The agreement should state whether compliance is binding, when obligations arise, any applicable conditions and the consequences of non-compliance. A mandatory pre-action step and a binding determination of the merits are distinct choices and should be stated separately.

3.4. The parties may instead or additionally arrange for an arbitrator of their choice to receive and consider the Final Decision, or to adopt its terms and issue or sign a separate instrument to the extent permitted by that arbitrator's duties and applicable law. Any such role requires a separate valid appointment and acceptance. The external arbitrator is not appointed by these Rules and does not participate in producing or approving JudgeAI's Final Decision.

3.5. A signature, adoption, award, order or other act of an external person is a separate legal act. JudgeAI's issuance is complete without it. If that person reaches a different result, that result is not a modification or reissuance of the JudgeAI Final Decision.

3.6. The parties are responsible for selecting and arranging the legal mechanism, obtaining necessary consents and appointments, and satisfying requirements for signatures, recognition and enforcement. JudgeAI does not undertake those external functions or guarantee the intended legal effect, acceptance or enforceability of the Final Decision.

3.7. Within the JudgeAI procedure, the only external examination of the determination is error-focused audit under Article 18. There is no human merits review or approval stage. Nothing in these Rules restricts any non-waivable right, mandatory safeguard or power of a competent court or external tribunal under applicable law.

Article 4. Core Procedural Principles

4.1. The proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with:

a. equality of the parties;

b. reasonable opportunity to present the case;

c. procedural transparency within the Data Room;

d. record-based decision-making;

e. reasoned determinations;

f. confidentiality;

g. efficiency and proportionality.

4.2. JudgeAI shall not decide on facts, claims, defences, documents, or legal theories that are not contained in the Record, except that it may identify missing or unresolved matters and draw procedural or evidentiary consequences as permitted by these Rules.

4.3. A party's failure to participate does not by itself constitute an admission of the opposing party's allegations. JudgeAI may continue the proceedings and draw appropriate evidentiary conclusions from the Record.

Article 5. Electronic Data Room and Communications

5.1. All proceedings shall be conducted electronically through the JudgeAI Data Room unless the arbitration agreement or mandatory law requires otherwise.

5.2. The Data Room shall contain or display, where filed, generated, or available in the current platform version:

a. the Request;

b. notice to the Respondent;

c. the Answer;

d. any Reply and Rejoinder;

e. evidence and exhibits;

f. procedural status and timetable entries;

g. applicable law assessment;

h. platform-generated metadata, logs, or audit entries where exposed by the platform;

i. the Final Decision.

5.3. Communications, notices, and procedural updates sent through the platform, by registered platform email, or by another agreed electronic method are deemed electronic communications for purposes of these Rules.

5.4. Access to the Data Room is currently tied to the Claimant account and the invited Respondent account. Access for representatives, counsel, experts, and other authorized persons may be supported by platform configuration or later product functionality. Each user must authenticate using the secure access method required by JudgeAI.

Article 6. Commencement of Arbitration

6.1. Arbitration is commenced when the Claimant submits a Request through the JudgeAI platform.

6.2. The Request should include:

a. names and contact details of the parties;

b. a concise statement of the dispute;

c. facts supporting the claim;

d. relief or remedy sought;

e. legal grounds or arguments, if known;

f. the contract or legal instrument giving rise to the dispute, if any;

g. the arbitration agreement or clause, if available;

h. the governing law, seat, and language, if alleged or agreed;

i. supporting evidence.

6.3. The Claimant should submit all evidence on which it relies with the Request, unless the evidence is unavailable or the procedural timetable permits later submission.

6.4. The platform may reject a Request that does not include a required claim document or cannot be processed. Other deficiencies may be flagged in the Data Room, the preflight checks, or the decision workflow.

Article 7. Notice to Respondent and Access

7.1. Upon filing of the Request, JudgeAI shall create a Data Room and send notice to the Respondent using the email address or contact method supplied by the Claimant.

7.2. The notice shall include, where available:

a. the case title;

b. the case identifier;

c. the identity of the Claimant;

d. the invited Respondent email or contact;

e. a secure link to the Data Room;

f. the next procedural step;

g. the deadline for the Answer, if fixed.

7.3. The Respondent must access the Data Room using the invited account or another account approved by JudgeAI.

7.4. If a Respondent contends that notice was defective or that access was not possible, it shall raise the issue promptly through the platform.

Article 8. Answer, Defences, Counterclaims, and Objections

8.1. The Respondent shall submit an Answer through the platform. The current platform requires the Answer before the case can proceed to the post-Answer timetable or AI review. A fixed Answer deadline may be stated in the notice, arbitration agreement, or a later platform configuration; it is not currently auto-enforced by the Data Room unless configured.

8.2. The Answer should include:

a. admission or denial of each material claim;

b. factual and legal defences;

c. jurisdictional objections;

d. objections to applicable law, seat, language, or procedure;

e. counterclaims, set-off, or cross-claims, if any;

f. requested outcome;

g. supporting evidence.

8.3. Jurisdictional objections should be raised no later than the Answer, unless JudgeAI determines that later submission is justified.

8.4. Counterclaims or set-off may be included in the Answer text and supporting documents. The current platform does not yet provide a separate structured counterclaim module. Such matters are considered from the filed record if they fall within the arbitration agreement and can be determined without unfair prejudice to the other party.

Article 9. Case Definition and Procedural Order

9.1. After the Answer is filed, JudgeAI shall define the procedural state of the case and issue or generate a procedural timetable.

9.2. The current Data Room displays a case definition through case metadata, party identity, procedural stage, timetable, applicable-law assessment, documents, submissions, and workflow status. A separate formal Terms of Reference document is not currently generated automatically. Where appropriate, the case definition may identify:

a. the parties;

b. the claims and relief sought;

c. the defences and objections;

d. counterclaims or set-off;

e. issues for determination;

f. alleged seat, language, and applicable law;

g. the procedural timetable;

h. any unresolved procedural issue.

9.3. The case definition is based on the Record and may be revised if permitted by these Rules or required by due process.

Article 10. Procedural Timetable

10.1. After the Answer is filed, JudgeAI shall establish a sequential procedural timetable for any further written exchange.

10.2. Unless otherwise ordered or configured, the default platform timetable is:

a. Claimant Reply and supporting evidence: 14 calendar days after the Answer or procedural timetable is issued;

b. Respondent Rejoinder and supporting evidence: 14 calendar days after the Claimant Reply deadline;

c. closure of the Record: upon expiry of the Respondent Rejoinder period.

10.2A. In the current platform configuration, additional evidence is permitted only within the filing party's own window: the Claimant's additional evidence is due by the Claimant Reply deadline, and the Respondent's additional evidence is due by the Respondent Rejoinder deadline.

10.3. The Claimant may not use the Respondent's Rejoinder period to introduce new Reply materials without permission.

10.4. The Respondent shall have a separate and effective opportunity to respond to the Claimant's Reply and any evidence filed with it.

10.5. The timetable may be modified through supported platform functions, with any disputed procedural determination made by the automated workflow, if:

a. the arbitration agreement so provides;

b. both parties agree;

c. the Record shows good reason;

d. technical access problems affected a party's ability to file;

e. new evidence could not reasonably have been submitted earlier;

f. fairness requires modification.

10.6. Any modification shall be recorded in the Data Room.

Article 11. Applicable Law, Seat, and Language

11.1. The procedural law of the arbitration shall be determined by the seat or legal place of arbitration, if agreed or determined. The current platform records and analyzes seat/forum signals from the filed record but does not yet provide a separate seat-selection form.

11.2. The merits shall be decided under the law or rules of law chosen by the parties.

11.3. If the parties have not chosen the applicable law for the merits, JudgeAI shall determine the applicable law or governing legal framework from the Record. It shall consider, as relevant:

a. the governing law clause;

b. the arbitration agreement;

c. the seat or forum;

d. the place of performance;

e. the place where the relevant obligation arose;

f. the parties' domicile, registration, or principal place of business;

g. the language and currency of the contract;

h. mandatory rules;

i. trade usages;

j. private international law principles;

k. the parties' submissions.

11.4. If applicable law is disputed, JudgeAI shall treat it as an issue for determination and provide reasons.

11.5. If no express governing law is detected, JudgeAI shall not omit the issue. The Final Decision must state the law or governing framework applied and the reasons for applying it.

11.6. The language of arbitration shall be the language agreed by the parties. If none is agreed, the current decision workflow writes in the dominant language of the case materials where clear, otherwise in English. A separate language-selection control is not currently implemented.

11.7. Documents in another language may be considered if readable by the platform, but JudgeAI may require translation or may treat untranslated materials as carrying reduced evidentiary weight where fairness requires.

Article 12. Evidence and Document Record

12.1. Each party shall submit the documents and evidence on which it relies within the applicable filing window.

12.2. Evidence should be submitted in searchable or machine-readable form where possible.

12.3. The current platform accepts TXT, MD, JSON, CSV, PDF, and DOCX uploads in the Data Room. Other formats, including images, audio, and video, require later platform support or separate agreement and may not be processed in the current version.

12.4. Each document should, where possible, include:

a. a descriptive title;

b. page numbers;

c. exhibit numbering;

d. references to the facts or arguments it supports;

e. date and author, if relevant.

12.5. JudgeAI classifies filed documents by party, filing stage, and document type in the Data Room. Reliability, relevance, probative value, chronology, and evidentiary gaps are assessed in the AI decision workflow.

12.6. JudgeAI may consider:

a. consistency with other evidence;

b. source and authorship;

c. chronology;

d. internal contradictions;

e. corroboration;

f. completeness;

g. whether the opposing party had a fair opportunity to respond.

12.7. Evidence filed after the applicable deadline shall not be admitted unless JudgeAI permits it under Article 13.

Article 13. Late Evidence, Amendments, and Extensions

13.1. A party seeking to submit late evidence or amend a claim or defence must make a reasoned request accessible to the other party. The request may be filed through a supported Data Room function or the published platform contact channel. Its receipt does not itself admit the material; any contested admission requires determination through the automated workflow.

13.2. JudgeAI may permit late evidence or amendment if:

a. the evidence was not reasonably available earlier;

b. the submission is necessary to avoid serious unfairness;

c. the other party can be given a fair opportunity to respond;

d. the amendment does not exceed the scope of the arbitration agreement;

e. the delay is justified.

13.3. JudgeAI may refuse late evidence if admission would create unfair prejudice, delay, or procedural imbalance.

13.4. Admitted late evidence must be accompanied by a reasonable opportunity for the other party to respond. Reopening or extension must be recorded and implemented through a supported procedure. An unavailable platform function does not authorise a human substitute for a JudgeAI determination.

Article 14. Failure to Participate and Procedural Default

14.1. In the current platform, the AI decision workflow for a party arbitration room requires an Answer before it can run. A default or no-Answer procedure may be added later if notice and reasonable opportunity to participate can be verified.

14.2. Failure to file an Answer shall not automatically be treated as admission of the claim.

14.3. If a party fails to file a Reply, Rejoinder, or evidence within the applicable period, JudgeAI may proceed on the existing Record after the procedural timetable closes.

14.4. JudgeAI may draw appropriate evidentiary conclusions from a party's failure to produce evidence that would reasonably be expected to be within that party's control.

Article 15. Closure of the Record

15.1. The Record shall close upon expiry of the final procedural deadline unless JudgeAI orders otherwise.

15.2. After closure of the Record, no further evidence or submissions shall be admitted except by permission under Article 13 or to correct a technical filing error.

15.3. Once the Record is closed, JudgeAI may initiate the AI decision workflow.

15.4. The Data Room shall record the date and time of closure.

Article 16. AI Decision Workflow

16.1. After closure of the Record, JudgeAI shall determine the case through its fully autonomous decision workflow. No human selects the outcome, resolves a disputed issue, revises the substantive reasons, approves the determination or signs on behalf of an adjudicator within that workflow.

16.2. The workflow may include:

a. extraction of claims and relief;

b. extraction of defences and objections;

c. issue mapping;

d. evidence indexing;

e. applicable law assessment;

f. factual chronology;

g. evidence reliability and weight assessment;

h. legal and contractual analysis;

i. remedy and quantum analysis;

j. production and electronic issuance of the reasoned Final Decision.

16.3. Findings of case-specific fact shall be based on the admitted Record and permitted procedural metadata. JudgeAI may identify applicable legal sources, mandatory rules and general legal principles. Material new factual propositions must not be introduced without a reasonable opportunity for the parties to respond.

16.4. The workflow shall distinguish:

a. alleged facts;

b. admitted facts;

c. disputed facts;

d. established facts;

e. unsupported assertions;

f. unresolved evidentiary gaps.

16.5. JudgeAI may generate internal analytical artifacts. Internal artifacts are not the Final Decision unless expressly designated as such.

16.6. The Final Decision shall not expose internal system identifiers, backend mechanics, model prompts, or technical scoring labels unless the parties have agreed otherwise or disclosure is required by law.

Article 17. Final Decision

17.1. The Final Decision shall be reasoned and shall constitute the completed determination delivered by JudgeAI. It is not awaiting human adjudication, approval, adoption or signature within this procedure.

17.2. The Final Decision should include:

a. identification of the parties;

b. procedural background;

c. summary of claims and defences;

d. issues for determination;

e. applicable law and contract interpretation;

f. findings of fact and evidence assessment;

g. analysis and reasons;

h. decision or disposition;

i. remedies, amounts, interest, costs, or performance obligations, where applicable;

j. date and electronic issuance record.

17.3. The Final Decision must contain a standalone determination of applicable law or governing legal framework. If the issue is disputed or not expressly agreed, the Final Decision must state the reasons for the determination.

17.4. The Final Decision may be generated rapidly after closure of the Record, but no fixed issuance time is guaranteed unless expressly stated in the arbitration agreement or procedural order.

17.5. Finality within JudgeAI and external legal effect are distinct. Contractual effect, status as an arbitral award, recognition and enforcement depend on the External Legal Arrangement and applicable law under Articles 3 and 22.

17.6. A party may seek an External Audit under Article 18. Issuance and completion of the Final Decision are not conditional on such an audit.

Article 18. External Error Audit and Automated Correction

18.1. External Audit, including human audit, is permitted solely to identify and document specific errors. It is not a merits appeal, a human approval stage or authority to replace JudgeAI's determination with the auditor's judgment.

18.2. An audit or correction request shall identify the decision and affected passage, the alleged error, the relevant Record entry or source, and why the error may affect the reasoning or disposition. Errors may concern record omission or misreading, factual attribution, application of a stated legal rule, procedural compliance, calculation, internal inconsistency, clerical mistakes or an omitted submitted claim. Disagreement with the outcome alone does not establish an error.

18.3. A party may submit an error report, a request to clarify an ambiguous disposition, or a request concerning an omitted claim within 30 days of receipt of the Final Decision, unless a different period is agreed. This period does not restrict non-waivable rights or legally prescribed remedies. Requests may use an available platform function or the published platform contact channel; receipt of a request does not establish that the alleged error exists.

18.4. An audit report relevant to a proposed correction shall be disclosed to both parties, subject to confidentiality and data-protection requirements. Each party shall have a reasonable opportunity to respond before a substantive correction or additional determination is issued. An auditor may not introduce untested case facts or obtain undisclosed instructions on the outcome.

18.5. Any determination of whether an alleged error warrants a changed disposition, clarification or additional determination shall be made through the automated JudgeAI workflow. Any resulting corrected or additional decision shall also be produced and issued autonomously. An auditor or operator may not rewrite the reasons, select a different remedy or approve the result. The availability of a submission channel does not imply that every correction function is available as a self-service feature.

18.6. Original and subsequent versions, the correction request and the grounds for any change shall be retained in the procedural record. A correction must identify the version it replaces or supplements. An audit report alone does not amend or suspend the Final Decision; external suspensive effects, if any, are governed by the parties' agreement and applicable law.

18.7. Access for an auditor requires lawful authorisation and compliance with confidentiality, security and data-protection obligations. Audit does not confer an unrestricted right to source code, model prompts, trade secrets or unrelated records. Legally required disclosure remains governed by applicable law.

Article 19. Confidentiality

19.1. The arbitration, Data Room, submissions, evidence, procedural orders, internal workflow outputs, and Final Decision are confidential unless:

a. the parties agree otherwise;

b. disclosure is required by law;

c. disclosure is necessary for recognition, enforcement, correction, challenge, or protection of legal rights;

d. disclosure is required for platform security, audit, or compliance purposes under the Privacy Policy.

19.2. Users with access to the Data Room shall use case materials only for the arbitration and related legal purposes.

19.3. JudgeAI may retain technical logs and procedural metadata as necessary for security, auditability, legal compliance, and operation of the platform.

Article 20. Data Protection and Security

20.1. JudgeAI shall process personal data and case materials in accordance with its Privacy Policy and applicable data protection laws.

20.2. JudgeAI shall apply reasonable technical and organizational measures to protect case materials.

20.3. Parties are responsible for avoiding unnecessary submission of irrelevant personal data, privileged materials, or third-party confidential information.

20.4. If a party believes that privileged or mistakenly submitted material has been filed, it shall notify JudgeAI promptly.

Article 21. Costs and Fees

21.1. Platform fees, arbitration costs, and any legal costs shall be governed by the arbitration agreement, the platform pricing terms, and any procedural order. The current Data Room does not yet provide a structured costs-submission module.

21.2. Unless otherwise agreed, each party bears its own legal costs during the proceedings.

21.3. The Final Decision may address costs if the parties' submissions, arbitration agreement, and applicable law provide a sufficient basis. Structured costs allocation is not currently a separate automated platform module.

21.4. In allocating costs, JudgeAI may consider:

a. the outcome;

b. procedural conduct;

c. unnecessary delay;

d. unreasonable refusal to cooperate;

e. submission of false or misleading evidence;

f. proportionality.

Article 22. External Implementation, Recognition and Enforcement

22.1. The parties shall comply with obligations arising from the External Legal Arrangement to the extent that arrangement is binding under applicable law. These Rules do not independently create the status or enforcement powers of a court or statutory arbitral tribunal.

22.2. A party choosing a contractual or pre-action mechanism is responsible for specifying and pursuing the corresponding contractual remedies. A party choosing separate arbitration is responsible for the appointment, procedure and formalities required for that arbitration. Any external arbitrator's duty to consider, adopt or sign an instrument is governed by that appointment and applicable law.

22.3. The party seeking recognition or enforcement is responsible for the necessary applications and legal requirements. Any treaty regime, including the New York Convention, applies only where its own requirements are satisfied; use of JudgeAI or the title of these Rules does not establish that applicability.

22.4. JudgeAI's undertaking under these Rules is to conduct its decision-making autonomously and deliver the resulting Final Decision. It does not undertake to obtain an external signature, arrange an arbitrator, secure judicial approval, enforce the result or guarantee its recognition.

22.5. Copies of the Final Decision and available procedural records may be provided for lawful external use, subject to confidentiality, security, data protection and applicable law. Such provision does not make the recipient a participant in JudgeAI's decision-making process.

Article 23. Platform Limitations

23.1. JudgeAI analyzes the Record provided by the parties. It is not responsible for false, incomplete, forged, misleading, or unlawfully obtained evidence submitted by a party.

23.2. JudgeAI may flag deficiencies, contradictions, unreadable documents, missing evidence, or procedural gaps, but the parties remain responsible for the content and accuracy of their submissions.

23.3. A technical failure materially affecting participation shall be recorded. Any suspension, extension or reopening must preserve equal participation and be implemented through a supported procedure. Technical restoration and access support do not confer authority to adjudicate or amend the Final Decision.

23.4. The platform may refuse files that exceed technical limits, contain malware, are unreadable, or cannot reasonably be processed.

Article 24. Amendments and Transitional Provisions

24.1. JudgeAI may amend these Rules from time to time.

24.2. Unless otherwise stated, amendments apply to cases commenced after the effective date of the amended Rules.

24.3. Pending cases continue under the Rules in force at commencement unless all parties agree in writing to apply the amended Rules. A change to the decision-making model or legal effect shall not be applied to a pending case merely as a technical update.

24.4. Procedural updates to the platform interface, data room display, security measures, or technical processing may apply to pending cases if they do not alter substantive rights or materially prejudice a party's procedural opportunity.

Appendix A. Default Procedural Timetable

Unless otherwise ordered, configured, or agreed:

1. Request / Statement of Claim: filed by Claimant to commence arbitration.

2. Notice to Respondent: sent electronically after creation of the Data Room.

3. Answer / Response: required before post-Answer timetable and AI review. A 14 calendar day Answer period may be used if stated in the notice, arbitration agreement, or platform configuration, but the current Data Room does not auto-enforce a default Answer deadline.

4. Claimant Reply and evidence: 14 calendar days after the Answer or procedural timetable is issued, under current default configuration.

5. Respondent Rejoinder and evidence: 14 calendar days after expiry of the Claimant Reply period, under current default configuration.

6. Record closure: upon expiry of the Respondent Rejoinder period.

7. AI decision workflow: runs autonomously after record closure and satisfaction of the applicable preconditions. Initiating an available run control is not adjudication or approval of the result.

8. Final Decision: issued after completion of the AI decision workflow.

Appendix B. Model Submission Clause and External Legal Options

The following wording requires the parties to select and complete their intended external legal mechanism. The options do not themselves establish enforceability in any jurisdiction.

Common autonomous-procedure clause

The parties submit disputes arising out of or relating to [defined agreement or subject matter] to the autonomous JudgeAI procedure under the JudgeAI AI Arbitration Rules [version]. JudgeAI shall produce and issue its reasoned Final Decision without human adjudication, approval or signature within that procedure. External audit, including human audit, is limited to identifying and documenting errors under Article 18; any corrected determination shall be produced autonomously. The parties consent to electronic filings, notices and issuance. The law or rules of law governing the merits shall be [law]. The language shall be [language].

Option A. Contractual determination or settlement mechanism

The parties agree that the Final Decision shall determine their contractual obligations concerning [scope] and shall be performed within [period], subject to [specified conditions] and applicable mandatory law. Where the parties intend a settlement mechanism agreed in advance, its operation and any further required act of acceptance or execution shall be [specified mechanism]. The governing law of this undertaking shall be [law], and disputes about its validity or performance shall be submitted to [chosen court or separate arbitration mechanism].

Option B. Required pre-action procedure

Before commencing [specified court or arbitration proceedings], the parties shall complete the JudgeAI procedure, subject to applicable mandatory rights and any agreed exceptions for urgent relief or preservation of limitation periods. The Final Decision shall [create the contractual obligations specified here / fulfil the procedural precondition without separately binding the merits]. The time allowed to complete this step and the consequence of non-completion shall be [specified terms].

Option C. Separate arbitration or external adoption

The parties shall separately appoint [arbitrator or appointment mechanism], with seat [seat] and procedural rules [rules]. Subject to that arbitrator's acceptance, duties and applicable mandatory law, the arbitrator shall consider the JudgeAI Final Decision and [give a reasoned determination addressing it / adopt its terms and issue or sign a separate award or instrument where legally permissible]. This external process is distinct from JudgeAI's completed autonomous determination. JudgeAI does not appoint the arbitrator, procure acceptance or signature, or warrant recognition or enforcement of the external instrument.

Error audit and preservation of rights

Any voluntary audit within the JudgeAI procedure is confined to Article 18. The parties' chosen external mechanism, applicable mandatory rights and any required safeguards govern legal effect outside that procedure. Nothing in this clause authorises an auditor to replace JudgeAI's Final Decision or purports to displace non-waivable rights.