Framework
Digital Worker Dispute Resolution (DWDR)
DWDR is the working name for the discipline and framework DWRC is developing. It is under active development — not an adopted or officially finalized set of rules.
Purpose
Purpose and potential scope
DWDR aims to provide a shared way of analyzing disputes that involve a digital worker's identity, authority, actions, or agreements — whether the dispute is between a human and a digital worker, between two digital workers, or between the organizations responsible for them.
Actual jurisdiction, the enforceability of any arbitration outcome, and the procedural rules that would govern a real case all depend on future governance decisions and applicable law. Nothing on this page should be read as an adopted rule or a guarantee of legal effect.
Foundational model
Identity, authority, evidence, rules, resolution, review
Identity
Who or what acted — the digital worker, and the identity evidence available for it.
Authority
What that digital worker was authorized to do, by whom, and within what limits at the relevant time.
Evidence
The records, logs, agreements, and other material bearing on what happened, including their source and limitations.
Rules
The agreements, policies, or applicable law that govern whether an action was permitted or a condition was met.
Resolution
The process by which a dispute is analyzed and an outcome is proposed or reached.
Review
The opportunity to challenge, reconsider, or escalate a resolution before it is treated as final.
Resolution pathways
A conceptual resolution ladder
Not every dispute follows an identical path. Simpler, machine-verifiable disagreements may resolve earlier; consequential disputes are intended to reach human review.
- 01
Automated deterministic resolution
For disputes with clear, machine-verifiable conditions and no material factual disagreement.
- 02
Mediation / facilitated resolution
A facilitated process helping parties reach their own agreed outcome.
- 03
AI-assisted technical analysis
AI-assisted organization, comparison, or inconsistency detection to support human decision-making — not a replacement for it.
- 04
Human review
A person reviews the evidence, analysis, and applicable rules before a determination is treated as final.
- 05
Contractual arbitration where legally agreed
Where parties have agreed to arbitration, that legally binding process may apply under applicable law.
- 06
External court / regulator / competent authority
Matters that fall outside DWRC's scope, or that a party is entitled to pursue there, remain available through external legal and regulatory systems.
Review
Human review, reconsideration, and external authority
DWRC's institutional philosophy rejects irreversible, black-box consequential determinations. Future processes are intended to support appropriate reasoning records, evidence review, and the ability to challenge or reconsider an outcome, proportionate to the process and applicable law. Not every future process will necessarily carry identical appeal rights.
Where a matter falls outside DWRC's scope, or a party is entitled to pursue it elsewhere, external courts, regulators, and competent authorities remain available. DWRC does not claim sovereign judicial authority.
Open questions
Research questions this framework has not yet resolved
- How should delegated authority be evidenced and time-bound?
- What provenance standards make digital evidence trustworthy across providers?
- How should agent-to-agent obligations be expressed in machine-readable form?
- What review and appeal structures are appropriate for different process types?
- How should cross-border disputes be approached when applicable law differs?