Framework
The Rules structure every dispute along three axes: category (what kind of breach is alleged), attribution pathway (how to assign responsibility between agent and principal), and evidence strata (how to weigh what's on the record).
Three categories
Performance
Non-delivery, service-level breach, specification non-conformity, quantity shortfall, pricing discrepancy. The largest class; automated by default.
Authority
Agent committed the principal to an action the principal disputes the agent was authorized to take. Interpretive; human review by default until the B.3.2(c) gate-removal condition is satisfied.
Misconduct
Intentional misconduct by a principal (fraud, agent-deployment to evade obligations). Permanent human-only boundary; never machine-adjudicated.
Five attribution pathways
Exactly one primary pathway is identified per Attribution Record. Alternatives are noted in governing-rules-applied where plausible.
Four evidence strata
- (a) Transaction: the protocol-level exchange: POs, acknowledgements, shipment records, substitution notices, timestamps. What the agents exchanged.
- (b) Configuration: the agent's system prompt, parameter limits, authorized actions, approval policies at the moment of action. What the agent was allowed to do.
- (c) Behavior profile: counterfactual re-queries of the agent under preserved state; diagnostic of whether the observed behaviour is the modal outcome or an edge-case. What the agent would have done again.
- (d) Capability: the model provider's published statement of how agents configured with the parameters in dispute will behave. What the provider said the agent could do.
Strata are cumulative, not hierarchical. Missing or partial strata (c) or (d) are disclosed as forward commitments per Rules P.5 and Annex E.1, not treated as adverse inference.
Principles
P.1 Opt-in. Jurisdiction is consensual. Parties opt in per engagement or by standing agreement.
P.2 Contract-first. The Rules fill gaps; they do not override express contract terms.
P.3 Machine speed by default. Category 1 determinations target sub-five-minute turnaround. Human review is reserved for Category 2 until gate-removed, and for Category 3 always.
P.4 Evidence-source neutrality. Evidence from Verdra Record, third-party capture tools, platform-native logging, and party-assembled packages is treated identically on the face of the record.
P.5 Scope honesty. Where counterfactual re-query (stratum c, behavior profile) or the provider capability statement (stratum d) is missing or partial, the limitation is disclosed in the Attribution Record. No silent assumption that missing evidence is unfavourable.
P.6 Contestability. Every determination carries a 14-day contestability window. Grounds: procedural error, new evidence, classification dispute.
P.7 Publicness. Rules, pathway catalogue, and (anonymized) adjudication statistics are public. Parties can audit the adjudication.
B.1 Principles of interpretation
B.1.1 The Attribution Service applies the governing contract between the parties first. These rules fill gaps, resolve interpretive ambiguity, and allocate evidentiary weight; they do not override express contract terms.
B.1.2 Where an express contract term and an agent's internal configuration conflict, the contract term controls.
B.1.3 An agent's operational policy (including parameters such as timeout-fallbacks, composite-pricing methods, rate-limiter thresholds, or schema-version precedence) is not a contract term unless it is incorporated into the contract by express reference or by a course of dealing evidenced on the record.
B.2 Category 1: Performance
B.2.1 Non-delivery
Failure to deliver the contracted goods, data, or service within the agreed window is non-delivery. Remedy is Tier 1 (refund, replacement at supplier's cost, or proportional credit, at the buyer's election). Where partial delivery occurred, the dispute is assessed under B.2.4 (Quantity) rather than B.2.1.
B.2.2 Service-level breach
Failure to meet a quantified service level (availability, latency, throughput, error rate) measured per the contract's specified method. The contract's measurement method controls; internal supplier measurement methods are not determinative unless incorporated. Remedy is Tier 1 per the contract's credit schedule (or B.9 gap-filling where no schedule exists).
B.2.3 Specification non-conformity
Delivery of goods or services that do not conform to the agreed specification (grade, class, version, configuration). A conforming-delivery requirement is strict unless the contract specifies a tolerance. Where a tolerance is specified, a non-conformity that exceeds the tolerance is a breach. Remedy is Tier 1 per the contract's election clause (replacement, price adjustment, or rejection).
B.2.4 Quantity tolerance
Delivery of a quantity that deviates from the agreed quantity by more than the contractual tolerance. Where no tolerance is specified, a 2 percent tolerance is presumed. Blanket purchase orders are assessed against the cumulative commitment, not against single-release quantities, unless the contract expressly ties tolerance to releases.
B.2.5 Pricing / settlement discrepancy
A settlement or invoice price that deviates from the contract's pricing method. The contract's pricing method controls, including any reference-feed precedence, timestamping policy, or failover conditions. Internal operator-level pricing policies (composite methods, booking-window snapshots) are not contract terms unless incorporated. Remedy is Tier 1 (re-settlement at the corrected price, or unwind at pre-trade mid, at the non-defaulting party's election).
B.3 Category 2: Authority
B.3.1 Scope of mandate
An agent's commitments are binding on its principal to the extent of the principal-signed mandate in force at the time of the commitment. Commitments beyond the mandate are voidable by the principal within the contract's voidability window.
B.3.2 Scope of authority (interpretive ambiguity)
Where the governing contract contains an interpretive term bearing on an agent's authority (for example, "adjacent-category," "strategic-flexibility," "reasonable business judgment," or a quantified phrase such as "does not materially exceed"), and the parties dispute the term's application:
- (a) If the agent's configured parameters plausibly permit the action and the counterparty reasonably relied on the agent's assertion of authority, apparent authority is engaged and the commitment is presumptively binding.
- (b) Apparent authority is rebuttable where the counterparty had actual or constructive notice that the commitment exceeded the contract's authority bounds. A facially material excess (for example, a multiplier materially larger than any prior course of dealing) is a circumstance supporting constructive notice.
- (c) Where the interpretive term has not been resolved by prior decisions under these Rules, the dispute is escalated to human review under P.3. The B.3.2(c) gate-removal condition for Category 2 requires an established line of adjudicator-panel decisions on the specific interpretive term at issue.
B.4 Evidence strata and weight
B.4.1 The four evidence strata are cumulative, not hierarchical. The Attribution Service may weight any stratum by the reliability shown on the record.
B.4.2 Stratum (b) configuration evidence is controlling on questions of what the agent was configured to do. It is not controlling on questions of what the contract requires.
B.4.3 Stratum (c) behavior profile (counterfactual re-query under preserved state) is controlling on questions of what the agent would do on the facts. Absence or partial fidelity is a forward commitment, not a ground for adverse inference.
B.4.4 Stratum (d) capability is controlling where a provider's capability statement directly addresses the parameter or behaviour in dispute.
B.5 Causation
B.5.1 Causation is determinable where the evidence supports a unique attribution pathway with confidence above 0.85 for Category 1, or where the B.3.2(c) gate-removal condition is satisfied for Category 2.
B.5.2 Where multiple pathways are plausible, the Attribution Service identifies the primary pathway and notes the alternatives in the governing rules applied section.
B.6 Remedies
Tier 1 remedies are Category 1 performance remedies: credit, refund, replacement, re-settlement, price adjustment. Automated.
Tier 2 remedies are Category 2 authority remedies: voidance, ratification, authority clarification. Human review until B.3.2(c) gate-removal.
Tier 3 remedies (fraud findings, reputational sanctions, exclusion from the protocol) are reserved for Category 3 intentional misconduct; always human-escalated.
Prospective remedies (configuration changes, parameter updates) are available under Annex E.2 as forward-commitment remedies, disclosed in the Attribution Record as non-punitive alignment measures.
B.8 Contract silence: Category 1 gap-filling
Where the contract is silent on a Category 1 issue, the Attribution Service applies commercial-reasonableness defaults:
- (a) Quantity: a 2 percent tolerance (B.2.4).
- (b) Service levels: proportional credit at (missed / contracted) × period-fee.
- (c) Specification: strict conformance absent express tolerance.
B.9 Contract silence: Category 2 gap-filling
B.9.1 Where the contract is silent on the scope of an agent's authority for the action in dispute, the Attribution Service applies the principal-signed mandate as the controlling instrument.
B.9.2 Where neither the contract nor the mandate addresses the action, the dispute is escalated to human review under P.3.
B.10 Confidence threshold
B.10.1 The Attribution Service issues a final determination on a Category 1 dispute only where confidence is at or above 0.85. Below that threshold, the dispute is escalated to human review.
B.10.2 Category 2 disputes are human-escalated by default pending B.3.2(c) gate-removal for the specific interpretive class at issue.
The 0.85 threshold is calibrated against rehearsal data and updated quarterly. Parties may petition for recalibration.
Contestability
Every determination carries a 14-day contestability window with three grounds:
- Procedural error: the adjudicator misapplied the Rules or omitted required steps.
- New evidence: material evidence unavailable at filing that would alter the pathway or remedy.
- Classification dispute: the dispute was classified into the wrong Category or pathway.
A timely contest re-opens the record for adjudicator review. Contest decisions are final within the adjudicative process under these Rules; parties retain all rights to judicial review under applicable law.