Internet-Draft ADRP April 2026
stone Expires 27 October 2026 [Page]
Workgroup:
Internet Engineering Task Force
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Author:
B. stone
SwarmSync.AI

ADRP: Agent Dispute Resolution Protocol

Abstract

This document defines the Agent Dispute Resolution Protocol (ADRP), a wire protocol and state machine for resolving disputes that arise from cryptographically-attested agent-to-agent (A2A) transactions. ADRP is the companion specification to ATXN (draft-stone-atxn-00), which defines what an A2A transaction is. ADRP defines what happens when a party contests one.

ADRP severs an equivalence that every prior agentic commerce design has implicitly assumed: that a valid cryptographic proof bundle equals contractual satisfaction. It does not. Conduit-style cryptographic verifiers prove that an agent took specified actions; they do not prove that those actions satisfied the principal's Intent Mandate. ADRP bifurcates disputes into a cryptographic class (resolvable by code from the proof bundle and mandate chain) and a semantic class (resolvable only against pre-committed machine-readable acceptance criteria, with arbitration escalation when those criteria are absent or under-specified).

ADRP introduces the Arbitration Mandate as a fourth element of the AP2 mandate chain (Intent / Cart / Payment / Arbitration), pre-signed by the principal at agent-deployment time. The Arbitration Mandate is the FAA Section 2-compliant written agreement that anchors the entire protocol legally without statutory change.

ADRP defines a counter-attestation override pattern in which a signed RulingBundle supersedes a Conduit ProofBundle by a signing-time precedence rule rather than by mutation. Both the original attestation and the override are preserved forever in the hash chain; "override" is a verification-time computation, not a write.

Companion specifications (all co-submitted as Internet-Drafts, work in progress):

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 27 October 2026.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1. The Problem

Conduit and similar cryptographic browser-automation verifiers produce SHA-256 hash-chained audit trails of agent task delivery. The proof bundles they produce are self-verifiable: any third party can replay the chain and confirm the recorded events occurred in the recorded order with the recorded signatures.

This is necessary but not sufficient.

A proof bundle attests that an agent took actions X, Y, and Z. It does not attest that X, Y, and Z satisfied the principal's Intent Mandate. Empirical data from Kleros (~40% of decentralized arbitration cases turn on spec ambiguity, not on whether action occurred) and from Upwork, Stripe Connect, and eBay (auto-resolve ceilings of 60-95% with all systems hitting walls below 95%) demonstrates that cryptographic proof of execution does not eliminate disputes — it relocates them to spec interpretation.

ADRP addresses the relocated dispute surface without breaking the cryptographic substrate.

1.2. What ADRP Defines

A five-layer protocol stacked on the existing Conduit + AP2 + ATXN stack:

Layer 5:
Precedent corpus (signed RulingBundles indexed by Cart Mandate template hash)
Layer 4:
Tier router (L1 atomic / L2 mandated / L3 fiduciary)
Layer 3:
Resolution engine (cryptographic-class auto, semantic-class arbitration)
Layer 2:
Counter-attestation primitive (append-only override of Conduit ProofBundle)
Layer 1:
Arbitration Mandate (4th AP2 mandate, FAA Section 2 written agreement)

1.3. What ADRP Deliberately Does NOT Do

  • ADRP does not modify the Conduit ProofBundle.
  • ADRP does not grant agents independent dispute standing.
  • ADRP does not require statutory change.
  • ADRP does not specify how acceptance criteria are authored.
  • ADRP does not promise greater than 90% auto-resolution.

1.4. Design Tenets

Bifurcation:
Cryptographic and semantic disputes require different paths.
Append-only override:
The hash chain is never mutated.
Principal-only standing:
Agents flag; only principals file.
Time-windowed default-resolution:
Silence equals approval.
Economic friction on filing:
Non-refundable filing fee deters spam.
No tokenized stake:
Filing fees are USD-denominated, non-refundable to the filer, refundable to the prevailing party.
Pre-committed arbiter:
The arbitration pool is named in the Arbitration Mandate at agent-deployment time.
Curated pool for v0.1:
Decentralized token-staked pools deferred to v0.2.
US-only B2B for v0.1:
Cross-border, consumer, and PSD2/Reg E scope deferred.

2. Terminology

The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174].

Conduit ProofBundle (H_c):
A SHA-256 hash-chained, Ed25519-signed audit trail produced by a cryptographic verifier of agent task delivery. The tip hash of this chain is referenced as H_c throughout this document.
RulingBundle (R):
A signed attestation by an authorized arbitrator that supersedes an underlying Conduit ProofBundle via signing-time precedence.
DisputeBundle:
The append-only chain of dispute events (filing, evidence, arbitrator assignment) anchored to a Conduit ProofBundle and consumed by verify_resolution.
DisputeFlag:
An advisory, agent-emitted notification that an anomaly has been detected. Non-binding. Expires if not ratified by the principal within the tier-specific window.
DisputeFiling:
A binding, principal-emitted dispute filing. Posts a filing fee. Anchors a DisputeBundle.
EscrowDirective:
The output of verify_resolution. Consumed by the AP2 Payment Mandate executor (or VCAP escrow rail) to release, refund, or split funds.
Arbitration Mandate:
The fourth element of the AP2 mandate chain, pre-signed by the principal at agent-deployment time. Defines the arbitration pool, governing-law clause, fee schedule, and L1/L2/L3 thresholds. Hash anchored in Standing Token.
Cart Mandate Acceptance Criteria:
A machine-readable structure embedded in the Cart Mandate that defines the deterministic checks Conduit attests against at delivery time.
Cryptographic-class dispute:
A dispute whose resolution is computable deterministically from (DisputeBundle, RulingBundle, Standing Token chain).
Semantic-class dispute:
A dispute whose resolution requires arbitration against the Cart Mandate's acceptance criteria.
Curated Arbitrator Pool:
A SwarmSync-published list of vetted human-or-model arbitrators registered as DIDs in TRUSTED_REGISTRIES. v0.1 mechanism.
Filing Fee:
A non-refundable, non-transferable, USD-denominated fee posted at DisputeFiling. Refundable only to the prevailing party.
Counter-attestation Override Pattern:
The verification-time precedence rule by which a RulingBundle supersedes a Conduit ProofBundle. Both are preserved forever in the hash chain.

Terms imported from ATXN (draft-stone-atxn-00): Bundle (the five-element ATXN primitive, ATXN Section 3), Standing Token (ATXN Section 4), Tier (L1/L2/L3, ATXN Section 5), Principal, Agent, Operator, Mandate Framework, Commitment Event, Revocation Beacon (all ATXN Section 2).

3. Architecture Overview

ADRP sits on top of the following existing layers:

+--------------------------------------+
| ADRP (this spec)                     |
| - Arbitration Mandate                |
| - DisputeFlag / DisputeFiling        |
| - RulingBundle (counter-attestation) |
| - EscrowDirective                    |
+--------------------------------------+
| ATXN (draft-stone-atxn-00)           |
| - Bundle (5 elements)                |
| - Standing Token                     |
| - Tier / Profile                     |
+--------------------------------------+
| AP2 / ACP / TAP / x402               |
| - Intent / Cart / Payment Mandates   |
+--------------------------------------+
| Conduit / AIVS                       |
| - SHA-256 hash-chained ProofBundles  |
| - Ed25519 signatures                 |
+--------------------------------------+

A dispute is the transition of an ATXN Bundle from delivered to disputed (per ATXN Section 8). ADRP defines what happens after that transition.

4. The Arbitration Mandate

4.1. Purpose

The Arbitration Mandate is the FAA Section 2 / NY Convention written, consensual arbitration agreement that makes ADRP enforceable without statutory change.

4.2. Required Fields

Table 1
Field Type Description
arb_mandate_id UUID Unique identifier
principal_did DID Principal's DID
arbitrator_pool_ref URI Reference to the curated arbitrator pool (v0.1)
governing_law String E.g., "FAA + Delaware seat"
fee_schedule_ref URI Reference to filing fee schedule
tier_thresholds Object L1/L2/L3 transaction-value boundaries
appeal_panel_size Integer Default 5
language_of_proceedings ISO 639-1 Default "en"
principal_signature Ed25519 base64 Principal's signature over canonical JSON

4.3. Anchoring

The Arbitration Mandate's SHA-256 hash MUST be referenced in the principal's Standing Token (per ATXN Section 4) under a new field arb_mandate_hash. A Standing Token without an anchored Arbitration Mandate hash MUST NOT participate in an L2 or L3 ATXN Bundle.

4.4. Mutability

The Arbitration Mandate MAY be replaced by the principal at any time, but the replacement MUST NOT apply retroactively to in-flight Bundles.

5. Standing and the Flag/File Distinction

5.1. Parties

The parties to any ADRP dispute are always principal-A and principal-B. Never agents. This preserves the A2A executor-not-party model from UETA Section 14 and Restatement (Third) of Agency.

5.2. Agent Flag Rights

Agents MAY emit DisputeFlags — advisory, low-cost (1 KB JSON max), signed by the agent's Standing Token. A DisputeFlag is non-binding and does not initiate the dispute state machine.

5.3. Principal File Rights

Only principals MAY emit DisputeFilings — binding, fee-posting, claim-coded events that initiate the dispute state machine.

5.4. Flag Expiration

Table 2
Tier Ratification Window
L1 N/A (no dispute)
L2 72h
L3 14d

After expiration, the flag is preserved in the audit log but cannot anchor a DisputeFiling.

5.5. Pre-Authorized Dispute Delegate

A principal MAY pre-authorize a dispute delegate via a delegation field in the Arbitration Mandate. The delegate's filings are treated as principal-filed for standing purposes.

6. Dispute Taxonomy

6.1. Cryptographic-Class Disputes

Resolved by code from (DisputeBundle, RulingBundle, Standing Token chain) without arbitration.

Table 3
Code Description
bundle_integrity SHA-256 chain breaks; signature verification fails
mandate_scope Agent acted outside Cart Mandate scope (deterministic predicate)
token_authority Standing Token revoked or expired pre-execution
timestamp_skew Attestation timestamps violate ordering invariants
oracle_contradiction Third-party oracle data contradicts attestation

A cryptographic-class dispute MUST NOT be routed to arbitration.

6.2. Semantic-Class Disputes

Resolved by arbitration against the Cart Mandate's acceptance criteria.

Table 4
Code Description
quality_mismatch Deliverable doesn't satisfy acceptance_criteria.checks
spec_ambiguity Acceptance criteria absent, under-specified, or contradictory
timing_breach SLA missed
fitness_for_purpose Deliverable formally compliant but unfit for principal's purpose

6.3. Classification

The DisputeFiling's claim_code field declares the class. ADRP verifiers MUST validate that the declared class matches the evidence.

6.4. ATXN dispute_class to ADRP Claim Code Mapping

ATXN (Section 10.3) defines a dispute_class field set at Bundle handoff. The normative mapping is:

Table 5
ATXN dispute_class ADRP Claim Code(s) ADRP Class
fact_dispute bundle_integrity, timestamp_skew, oracle_contradiction Cryptographic
terms_dispute mandate_scope, quality_mismatch, spec_ambiguity, timing_breach, fitness_for_purpose Semantic
capacity_dispute out of scope — see Section 6.5 —
framework_dispute out of scope — see Section 6.5 —

When a DisputeFiling arrives with an ATXN dispute_class, the ADRP verifier MUST map it to the corresponding claim_code bucket using this table before routing.

6.5. Out of Scope (v0.1)

Table 6
Class Reason Disposition
capacity_dispute Principal-level adjudication; agent action set aside entirely Bypass ADRP entirely; executing platform MUST freeze settlement and refund-to-buyer; route to regulatory or Principal-level forum outside ADRP
framework_dispute Mandate framework validity contested Bypass ADRP entirely; executing platform MUST freeze settlement; ADRP MUST NOT process until upstream framework forum resolves validity
Cross-border consumer disputes Reg E / PSD2 / GDPR overlap not yet resolved Defer to v0.2

7. The Counter-Attestation Override Pattern

7.1. Invariant

The Conduit ProofBundle's tip hash H_c is never modified. No byte of the original ProofBundle is rewritten. Override is a verification-time precedence rule, not a mutation.

7.2. RulingBundle Structure 

R = {
  type: "RulingBundle",
  supersedes: H_c,
  dispute_chain_tip: H_d,
  verdict: "release" | "refund" | "partial",
  partial_split: { to_buyer: 0.30, to_seller: 0.70 },
  rationale_hash: H_rationale,
  arbitrator_did: "did:web:...",
  arbitrator_vc_hash: H_vc,
  signing_time: "<RFC3339>",
  prev_hash: H_d
}
sig = Ed25519(arbitrator_priv, JCS(R))

7.3. Verification Rule

The latest valid RulingBundle (by signing_time) whose supersedes equals the underlying ProofBundle's tip hash AND whose signing arbitrator was authorized at signing_time, with chain integrity verified, is the verification winner.

7.4. Why This Works

Hash-chain immutability is preserved. Verification is offline and deterministic. Arbitrator authority is anchored to signing_time. The chain becomes a precedent corpus indexed by Cart Mandate template hash.

8. Wire Protocol

8.1. Message Types

Table 7
Number Type Emitter Purpose
1 DisputeFlag Agent Advisory anomaly notification (non-binding)
2 DisputeFiling Principal Binding dispute initiation; posts filing fee
3 EvidenceSubmission Either party Hash-chained artifact append
4 ArbitratorAssignment Registry Binds arbitrator DID to dispute
5 RulingBundle Arbitrator Signed verdict + escrow directive
6 EscrowDirective Verifier (derived) Consumed by AP2 Payment Mandate or VCAP rail

8.2. Common Message Envelope 

{
  "msg_type": "<one of the six>",
  "msg_id": "<UUID>",
  "prev_hash": "<SHA-256 of prior chain event>",
  "submitter_did": "<DID>",
  "submitter_signature": "<Ed25519 base64 over JCS of preceding fields>",
  "timestamp": "<RFC3339>",
  "payload": { ... type-specific ... }
}

8.3. Canonicalization

All signatures MUST be over the JCS ([RFC8785]) canonicalization of the signed object minus the signature field itself.

9. State Machine

9.1. States 

Pre-FILED:   FLAGGED         (agent-emitted; expires if not ratified)
             FILED           (principal-emitted; fee posted)
               |
               v
             ASSIGNED        (arbitrator bound to dispute)
               |
               v
             EVIDENCE_OPEN   (parties submit evidence)
               |
               v
             UNDER_REVIEW    (arbitrator deliberating)
               |
               v
             RULED           (RulingBundle signed)
               |
               v
             SETTLED         (EscrowDirective consumed by payment rail)

Terminal:    WITHDRAWN       (filer withdraws; fee partial-refunded)
             EXPIRED         (filing or evidence window expired)

9.2. ATXN State Machine Join Points

The ADRP internal state machine is entered from ATXN's disputed state. The normative join points are:

  • ATXN disputed → ADRP FLAGGED: agent-emitted DisputeFlag (advisory; principal must ratify within tier window to proceed)
  • ATXN disputed → ADRP FILED: principal-emitted DisputeFiling (skips FLAGGED)
  • ADRP RULED + ADRP SETTLED → ATXN adjudicated then finalized: EscrowDirective consumed by payment rail
  • ADRP WITHDRAWN or EXPIRED → ATXN finalized: dispute resolved without ruling; escrow released per Profile default

9.3. Invariants

Table 8
ID Invariant
I1 PaymentMandate.escrow_state == HOLD until SETTLED, WITHDRAWN, or EXPIRED
I2 No state mutates a prior attestation; transitions are new signed events
I3 prev_hash of every event = SHA-256 of canonical-JSON of the immediately prior event
I4 dispute_chain[0].prev_hash == ProofBundle.tip_hash
I5 Only an arbitrator authorized by the Arbitration Mandate's pool may emit RulingBundle
I6 EscrowDirective MUST be derivable from (DisputeBundle, RulingBundle) by verify_resolution

10. Tier Parameters

Table 9
Parameter L1 L2 L3
Dispute window 0 (atomic) 72h 14d
Filing fee N/A 10% of value, $1-$100 10% of value, $50-$1,000
Arbitrator SLA N/A 4h 24h
Arbitrator pool N/A Curated AI panel (3 of 5) Curated human pool (3 of 5) + optional legal review
Override threshold N/A 4-of-5 supermajority 4-of-5 supermajority
Max txn auto-arb unlimited $1,000 unlimited
Default if SLA missed N/A refund-to-buyer refund-to-buyer
Frivolous slash N/A 100% fee forfeited 100% fee forfeited
Novel-but-lost slash N/A 50% fee forfeited 50% fee forfeited
Appeal window N/A 12h 48h
Appeal panel N/A 5 (up from 3) 5 + legal review
Appeal quorum N/A 4 of 5 4 of 5
Escrow hold 0 7 days 21 days
Evidence file size cap N/A 10 MB total, max 20 files 10 MB total, max 20 files

10.1. Tier Routing

Tier is determined by the ATXN Bundle's Tier (per ATXN Section 5) AND by the transaction value relative to the max_txn_auto_arb ceiling. A Bundle declared L2 with transaction value greater than $1,000 MUST auto-escalate to L3 dispute processing. This is a dispute-processing escalation rule only and does not retroactively change the Bundle's declared formation Tier (see ATXN Section 5.2).

10.2. Default Ruling on SLA Miss

If the arbitrator pool fails to produce a RulingBundle within the SLA, the dispute MUST default to refund-to-buyer.

11. Cart Mandate Acceptance Criteria

11.1. Required Field

The Cart Mandate MUST contain:

{
  "acceptance_criteria": {
    "schema_version": "1",
    "checks": [
      { "type": "regex", "selector": "$.output", "pattern": "..." },
      { "type": "json_schema", "selector": "$.deliverable", "schema": { ... } },
      { "type": "deterministic_function", "function_hash": "sha256:..." },
      { "type": "human_review_required", "reason": "..." }
    ],
    "default_window_hours": 72,
    "silence_equals": "release"
  }
}

11.2. Check Types

Table 10
Type Evaluation
regex Deterministic regex match against JSON-path selector
json_schema JSON Schema validation against selector
deterministic_function Pure function (referenced by hash, fetched from registry) executed against deliverable
human_review_required Auto-routes to arbitration; flags spec as deliberately not auto-evaluable

11.3. Conduit Attestation Against Checks

Conduit attests against acceptance_criteria.checks at delivery time. If all checks pass deterministically, the dispute path auto-resolves cryptographically. If checks include human_review_required OR are missing, dispute auto-routes to L2 semantic arbitration.

11.4. The Authoring Helper (Normative for Deployment)

A natural-language-to-checks helper that converts a principal's English-language description into machine-checkable predicates is REQUIRED for v0.1 deployment.

12. Arbitrator Pool

12.1. v0.1: Curated Pool

v0.1 ships with a SwarmSync-curated arbitrator pool — a centralized list of vetted human-or-model arbitrators registered as DIDs in TRUSTED_REGISTRIES.

12.2. Selection Algorithm

Arbitrator selection MUST use a verifiable random function (VRF) seeded by the DisputeFiling's hash.

12.3. Pool Composition

Table 11
Tier Pool Composition
L2 AI arbitrator panels (model + curated checker)
L3 Human arbitrators (vetted, jurisdictionally-licensed where relevant) + optional legal review

12.4. Arbitrator Credentialing

Every arbitrator MUST hold a Verifiable Credential that names the arbitrator's DID, states valid_from and valid_until timestamps, names qualifications, and is signed by a registry in TRUSTED_REGISTRIES.

12.5. v0.2 Roadmap

Decentralized stake-weighted arbitrator pools are deferred to v0.2.

13. Filing Fee Economics

13.1. Fee Structure

Table 12
Parameter Value
Fee rate 10% of transaction value
Floor $1 (L2) / $50 (L3)
Ceiling $100 (L2) / $1,000 (L3)
Denomination USD (fiat or USDC stablecoin)
Refund To prevailing party only

13.2. Why Not a Tokenized Stake

The fee is non-refundable to the filer, non-transferable, and denominated in USD. It yields no return. It is not a security under Howey.

13.3. Slashing

Table 13
Outcome Filer's Fee
Filer prevails 100% refunded
Filer loses; novel evidence 50% forfeited
Filer loses; frivolous 100% forfeited
Filer withdraws before EVIDENCE_OPEN 75% refunded
Filer withdraws after EVIDENCE_OPEN 25% refunded

Forfeited fees MAY fund the arbitrator pool and a public dispute-quality dataset.

13.4. Arbitrator Compensation

Arbitrators are compensated 2% of transaction value (min $0.50) from the losing party's escrow.

14. Appeals

14.1. Trigger

Either party MAY file an appeal within the tier-specific appeal window (12h L2, 48h L3). Appeals require a fresh filing fee at 1.5x the original rate.

14.2. Appeal Panel

A 5-arbitrator panel selected via VRF from a different pool slice than the original ruling. Quorum: 4 of 5.

14.3. Finality

Appeal rulings are FINAL. There is no second appeal.

14.4. Appeal Override

An appeal RulingBundle supersedes the original RulingBundle by the same signing-time precedence rule (Section 7.3). Both are preserved forever.

15. Precedent Corpus

15.1. Indexing

Every signed RulingBundle is content-addressed and indexed by: Cart Mandate template hash; dispute claim_code; verdict; arbitrator DID; signing time.

15.2. Citation Requirement

Future arbitrators MUST query the precedent corpus for prior rulings on similar Cart Mandate templates and either cite or distinguish them.

15.3. v0.1 vs v0.2

v0.1 ships the data layer. v0.2 ships the search and citation infrastructure.

16. Verification Algorithm

16.1. The verify_resolution Function 

def verify_resolution(db: DisputeBundle, rb: RulingBundle) -> Result:
    # 1. Anchor checks
    assert db.conduit_proof_ref == rb.supersedes
    assert rb.prev_hash == db.chain_tip

    # 2. Chain integrity
    h = db.conduit_proof_ref
    for ev in [db.filing, *db.evidence_chain, db.arbitrator_assignment]:
        assert ev.prev_hash == h
        assert verify_sig(ev.submitter_did, ev.sig, jcs(ev))
        h = sha256(jcs(ev))
    assert h == db.chain_tip

    # 3. Arbitrator authority at signing_time (not now)
    vc = fetch_vc(rb.arbitrator_vc_hash)
    assert vc.subject == rb.arbitrator_did
    assert vc.issuer in TRUSTED_REGISTRIES
    assert vc.valid_from <= rb.signing_time <= vc.valid_until
    assert verify_sig(vc.issuer, vc.sig, jcs(vc))

    # 4. Ruling signature
    assert verify_sig(rb.arbitrator_did, rb.sig, jcs(rb_minus_sig))

    # 5. Verdict well-formed
    assert rb.verdict in {"release", "refund", "partial"}
    if rb.verdict == "partial":
        assert sum(rb.partial_split.values()) == 1.0

    # 6. Derive directive
    return Result(valid=True, escrow_directive=EscrowDirective(
        payment_mandate_ref=db.payment_mandate_ref,
        action=rb.verdict,
        split=rb.partial_split,
        ruling_ref=sha256(jcs(rb))
    ))

16.2. Determinism Requirement

Two honest verifiers given the same inputs MUST reach the same EscrowDirective.

16.3. Offline Requirement

verify_resolution MUST NOT require network access except to fetch the arbitrator's Verifiable Credential by hash.

17. SDK Surface

A conformant ADRP v0.1 SDK MUST expose at minimum six methods, implementable in 500 LOC total:

emit_flag(agent_standing_token, claim_code, evidence_ref) -> DisputeFlag
file_dispute(payment_mandate, claim_code, claim_detail, flag_ref) -> DisputeBundle
submit_evidence(dispute_id, artifact_bytes, mime_type) -> EvidenceLink
query_status(dispute_id) -> {state, chain_tip, latest_event}
render_ruling(dispute_id, verdict, partial_split, rationale) -> RulingBundle  # arbitrator-only
verify_resolution(dispute_bundle, ruling_bundle) -> {valid, escrow_directive}

17.1. Appeal as Re-Entry

An appeal is file_dispute with the prior_ruling_ref field set.

17.2. LOC Budget

emit_flag:
~30 LOC
file_dispute:
~80 LOC
submit_evidence:
~50 LOC
query_status:
~30 LOC
render_ruling:
~80 LOC
verify_resolution:
~120 LOC
Common envelope, signing, hash chain:
~110 LOC
Total:
~500 LOC

17.3. Golden Test Cases

Table 14
Number Case Expected Behavior
1 clear_release No flag, no filing, window expires → release
2 clear_refund DisputeFiling with valid bundle_integrity claim → refund
3 partial_split Semantic dispute, partial_split: {to_buyer: 0.30, to_seller: 0.70}
4 attestation_override Original ProofBundle preserved; latest valid RulingBundle wins
5 frivolous_dispute Filer loses without novel evidence → 100% fee forfeited
6 malicious_requester_reject Principal-A files invalid claim → fee forfeited, escrow releases to seller
7 expired_dispute DisputeFiling outside tier window → EXPIRED
8 flag_ratification DisputeFlag emitted, principal files within window → promoted
9 flag_expiration DisputeFlag emitted, no action within window → preserved but cannot anchor filing
10 appeal_supersedes Appeal RulingBundle supersedes original by signing-time precedence

18. Scope Locks for v0.1

Table 15
Lock Reason
US-only B2B No consumer / cross-border / Reg E / PSD2 / GDPR overlap
Partnered custody No SwarmSync-held escrow; relies on Stripe Connect, Bridge, Modern Treasury, or equivalent
Curated arbitrator pool No token-staked decentralized pool (Howey)
Filing fee, not stake Non-refundable, non-transferable, USD-denominated
Reputation logged but not modulating Avoids bootstrap-circular trust dependency in v0.1
Per-principal preference model deferred Data collection pipeline ships in v0.1; productized search ships in v0.2

19. Security Considerations

19.1. The >90% Auto-Resolution Target Is NOT a Protocol Property

The greater than 90% auto-resolution target is a deployment-conditional target, not a protocol property. Empirical base rates (Kleros, eBay, Upwork, Mechanical Turk) cap auto-resolution at 60-95%. Implementations MUST: ship a normative NLP-to-checks authoring helper; run a 90-day shadow-mode pilot before GA; measure check-coverage and auto-resolution rate as primary metrics; pivot to mandatory human_review_required flag if check coverage is less than 30% at day 30.

19.2. The Bifurcation Seam

Adversaries will probe the seam between cryptographic-class and semantic-class disputes. The classification validation in Section 6.3 is REQUIRED.

19.3. Arbitrator Collusion

A 4-of-5 threshold is compromisable via collusion of 4 arbitrators. Mitigations: diversify the curated pool across non-correlated risk profiles; monitor for arbitrator-pair correlation in rulings; periodically audit a random sample of rulings.

19.4. Filing Fee as DoS Vector

Mitigations: per-principal rate limit (max 0.5% of rolling 30-day transaction count); frivolous slash; account suspension after N frivolous filings.

19.5. Standing Token Replay

A revoked Standing Token MUST NOT anchor a new DisputeFiling.

19.6. Time-Skew Attacks

Mitigations: threshold-signature timestamps for L2 and L3 rulings (3-of-5 from a federated timestamping authority); reject rulings with signing_time more than 5 minutes in the future.

19.7. Jurisdictional Enforceability of the Arbitration Mandate

Implementations SHOULD seek a written legal opinion in the deployment jurisdiction before relying on the Arbitration Mandate to defeat a court filing.

19.8. Sanctions Screening

Every party receiving funds via an EscrowDirective MUST be screened against OFAC and equivalent sanctions lists.

19.9. Principal Capacity Mid-Dispute

If a principal's capacity attestation expires or is revoked mid-dispute, the dispute MUST be halted and routed to a capacity_dispute, defaulting to refund-to-buyer.

19.10. Acknowledged Residual Risks

  • Hallucinated mandates: partially mitigated by L3 epistemic attestation; unsolved for L1/L2.
  • Adversarial sub-agency chains: bounded by sub_delegation_depth per ATXN.
  • Arbitrator pool capture: mitigated by VRF selection; v0.2 decentralization is the long-term mitigation.

20. IANA Considerations

20.1. ADRP JSON-LD Context

URI: https://swarmsync.ai/spec/adrp/v1

20.2. ADRP Claim Code Registry

A new IANA registry "ADRP Claim Codes" is requested. Registration policy: Specification Required (per [RFC8126]).

Initial entries:

Table 16
Code Class Description
bundle_integrity cryptographic SHA-256 chain breaks; signature verification fails
mandate_scope cryptographic Agent acted outside Cart Mandate scope
token_authority cryptographic Standing Token revoked or expired pre-execution
timestamp_skew cryptographic Attestation timestamps violate ordering invariants
oracle_contradiction cryptographic Third-party oracle data contradicts attestation
quality_mismatch semantic Deliverable doesn't satisfy acceptance_criteria.checks
spec_ambiguity semantic Acceptance criteria absent or under-specified
timing_breach semantic SLA missed
fitness_for_purpose semantic Deliverable formally compliant but unfit

20.3. ADRP Verdict Enum

A new IANA registry "ADRP Verdicts" is requested.

Table 17
Value Description
release Funds released to seller (counterparty)
refund Funds returned to buyer (filer)
partial Funds split per partial_split (must sum to 1.0)

20.4. ADRP Trusted Registries List

A new IANA registry "ADRP Trusted Arbitrator Registries" is requested.

21. Acknowledgements

This specification synthesizes the output of the Ultimate Brainstorm v2.2 Agent Dispute Resolution Protocol session (2026-04-25). The author thanks: EpistemicAuditor (cryptographic/semantic bifurcation); Archaeologist (empirical base-rate floor); Quantifier (tier parameters); ConstraintCartographer (Arbitration Mandate as FAA anchor; v0.1 scope locks); socratic-mentor (principal-only standing); DarkMirror (flag/file distinction); IdeaMatrix (tiered hybrid architecture); RemixForge (Cart Mandate acceptance_criteria); SoSpec (wire protocol, state machine, SDK surface, verify_resolution algorithm); SpiderSpark (three-tier bonded-escalation structure).

Three formal dissents: Archaeologist assigns less than 40% probability to the greater than 90% auto-resolution target. EpistemicAuditor assigns 25% probability to median Cart Mandates having sufficient acceptance_criteria coverage. RemixForge considers deferring per-principal preference model to v0.2 a 70%-probability strategic mistake.

22. Normative References

[draft-stone-aivs-01]
stone, B., "AIVS: Agentic Integrity Verification Standard", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-stone-aivs-01, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-aivs-01>.
[draft-stone-atep-01]
stone, B., "ATEP: Agent Trust and Execution Passport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-stone-atep-01, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-atep-01>.
[draft-stone-atxn-00]
stone, B., "ATXN: Agent-to-Agent Transaction Definition Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-stone-atxn-00, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-atxn-00>.
[draft-stone-vcap-01]
stone, B., "VCAP: Verified Commerce for Agent Protocols", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-stone-vcap-01, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-vcap-01>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3339]
Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC8032]
Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032, DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.
[RFC8126]
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8785]
Rundgren, A., Jordan, B., and S. Erdtman, "JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS)", RFC 8785, DOI 10.17487/RFC8785, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8785>.
[W3C-DID]
W3C, "Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0", , <https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/>.
[W3C-VC-2.0]
W3C, "Verifiable Credentials Data Model 2.0", , <https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/>.

23. Informative References

[AP2]
Google, "Agent Payments Protocol", , <https://developers.google.com/wallet/agent-payments>.
[FAA]
United States Congress, "Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sections 1-16", .
[HOWEY]
Supreme Court of the United States, "SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293", .
[KLEROS]
Kleros, "Decentralized Court Protocol", , <https://kleros.io>.
[NY-CONVENTION]
United Nations, "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards", .
[OFAC-SANCTIONS]
U.S. Treasury OFAC, "Specially Designated Nationals List", , <https://ofac.treasury.gov/specially-designated-nationals-and-blocked-persons-list-sdn-human-readable-lists>.
[REST-AGENCY-3D]
American Law Institute, "Restatement (Third) of Agency", .
[STRIPE-CONNECT]
Stripe, "Connect Disputes and Chargebacks", , <https://stripe.com/docs/connect/disputes>.
[UETA-14]
Uniform Law Commission, "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act Section 14", .
[UMA]
UMA Protocol, "Optimistic Oracle", , <https://uma.xyz>.
[UPWORK-MEDIATION]
Upwork, "Dispute Process", , <https://support.upwork.com/hc/en-us/articles/211062568>.
[VISA-CHARGEBACK-CODES]
Visa Inc., "Visa Chargeback Reason Codes", , <https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/about-visa/visa-rules-public.pdf>.

Appendix A: JSON Schemas (Informative)

A.1 DisputeFiling Schema 

{
  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
  "$id": "https://swarmsync.ai/spec/adrp/v1/dispute-filing.schema.json",
  "title": "DisputeFiling",
  "type": "object",
  "required": [
    "msg_type", "msg_id", "prev_hash", "submitter_did",
    "submitter_signature", "timestamp", "payload"
  ],
  "properties": {
    "msg_type": { "const": "DisputeFiling" },
    "msg_id": { "type": "string", "format": "uuid" },
    "prev_hash": { "type": "string", "pattern": "^[0-9a-f]{64}$" },
    "submitter_did": { "type": "string" },
    "submitter_signature": { "type": "string" },
    "timestamp": { "type": "string", "format": "date-time" },
    "payload": {
      "type": "object",
      "required": [
        "payment_mandate_ref", "claim_code", "claim_detail", "filing_fee"
      ],
      "properties": {
        "payment_mandate_ref": { "type": "string" },
        "claim_code": { "type": "string" },
        "claim_detail": { "type": "string", "maxLength": 4096 },
        "flag_ref": { "type": "string" },
        "prior_ruling_ref": { "type": "string" },
        "filing_fee": {
          "type": "object",
          "required": ["amount", "currency", "transaction_id"],
          "properties": {
            "amount": { "type": "number", "minimum": 1, "maximum": 1000 },
            "currency": { "enum": ["USD", "USDC"] },
            "transaction_id": { "type": "string" }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

A.2 RulingBundle Schema 

{
  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
  "$id": "https://swarmsync.ai/spec/adrp/v1/ruling-bundle.schema.json",
  "title": "RulingBundle",
  "type": "object",
  "required": [
    "type", "supersedes", "dispute_chain_tip", "verdict",
    "rationale_hash", "arbitrator_did", "arbitrator_vc_hash",
    "signing_time", "prev_hash", "sig"
  ],
  "properties": {
    "type": { "const": "RulingBundle" },
    "supersedes": { "type": "string", "pattern": "^[0-9a-f]{64}$" },
    "dispute_chain_tip": { "type": "string", "pattern": "^[0-9a-f]{64}$" },
    "verdict": { "enum": ["release", "refund", "partial"] },
    "partial_split": {
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "to_buyer": { "type": "number", "minimum": 0, "maximum": 1 },
        "to_seller": { "type": "number", "minimum": 0, "maximum": 1 }
      }
    },
    "rationale_hash": { "type": "string", "pattern": "^[0-9a-f]{64}$" },
    "arbitrator_did": { "type": "string" },
    "arbitrator_vc_hash": { "type": "string", "pattern": "^[0-9a-f]{64}$" },
    "signing_time": { "type": "string", "format": "date-time" },
    "prev_hash": { "type": "string", "pattern": "^[0-9a-f]{64}$" },
    "sig": { "type": "string" }
  }
}

Appendix B: Worked Example (Informative)

B.1 Scenario

A small business principal (did:web:smb.example) dispatches an agent to book a $250 hotel reservation. The agent books in Portland, ME instead of Portland, OR due to an ambiguous Cart Mandate.

B.2 Sequence

  1. Agent emits DisputeFlag: claim_code quality_mismatch.
  2. Principal reviews flag within 72h, agrees booking is wrong.
  3. Principal emits DisputeFiling: quality_mismatch, filing_fee $25.00 USDC.
  4. Arbitrator assigned via VRF from L2 curated AI pool.
  5. Principal submits evidence: original Cart Mandate showing "Portland" without state qualifier.
  6. Counterparty submits evidence: acceptance_criteria.checks is empty.
  7. Arbitrator finds spec_ambiguity. Verdict: partial, split 70/30 to buyer/seller.
  8. RulingBundle signed within 4h SLA.
  9. EscrowDirective: $175 to buyer, $75 to seller.
  10. AP2 Payment Mandate executor consumes EscrowDirective, executes split.
  11. Filing fee: 50% forfeited ($12.50), 50% refunded ($12.50).

B.3 Verification

Any third party, given (DisputeBundle, RulingBundle), can run verify_resolution deterministically.

B.4 Precedent

RulingBundle indexed in precedent corpus by Cart Mandate template hash.

Appendix C: Open Issues for Shadow-Mode Validation

Table 18
Number Question Falsification Threshold
1 Will principals author Cart Mandates with 3+ acceptance_criteria.checks? Less than 30% coverage at day 30 → ship NLP-to-checks helper as mandatory
2 Will the auto-resolution rate hit 60%+? Less than 60% at day 60 → escalate to architectural review
3 Will the frivolous filing rate stay below 2%? Greater than 2% at day 60 → tighten filing fee floor
4 Will the curated arbitrator pool meet SLA at scale? Greater than 5% SLA breaches at day 90 → expand pool or accelerate v0.2
5 Will the Arbitration Mandate be challenged in court? Any court challenge → seek immediate written legal opinion
6 Will the precedent corpus accumulate fast enough? Less than 100 corpus queries by arbitrators at month 3 → revisit
7 Are tier thresholds calibrated correctly? Filing rate greater than 5% or less than 0.05% → recalibrate

GA is gated on: auto-resolution rate greater than or equal to 60% AND frivolous filing rate less than or equal to 2% AND zero court challenges AND arbitrator SLA breaches less than or equal to 5% AND median Cart Mandate has at least 1 non-trivial acceptance_criteria.check.

Author's Address

Ben Stone
SwarmSync.AI