Everything on the Record: Privacy and Transparency in DecidePlease™ Arbitration

Privacy in arbitration means two different things. There is privacy from the public — keeping your dispute out of open view. And there is transparency between the parties — making sure neither side tells the decision-maker something the other side never hears.

DecidePlease™ is designed to deliver both: private from everyone else, fully on the record between the two of you.

Private From the Public: Access-Code Rooms

A DecidePlease™ case lives in a private room shared by both parties, reached by an access code. It is not a public court record, not a searchable filing, and not a hearing anyone can attend.

Both parties must affirm the arbitration agreement before submissions open, with affirmations and any binding opt-ins recorded with timestamps. The process then runs in written rounds — opening statements, rebuttals, an optional questions round, deliberation, and award — with one primary submission per party per round.

Evidence follows the same contained model: structured entries with a title, description, and optional link, and no file uploads. What you file lives in the case record, for the parties and the adjudicator working on your case.

For disputes people would rather resolve quietly — a deposit disagreement, a payment dispute with a client, a falling-out between business partners — that containment is a practical benefit.

Transparent Between the Parties: No Caucuses

Inside the room, the rule reverses: nothing is private from the other party.

Every submission and every evidence item is visible to both parties at all times. There are no private caucuses, no side conversations with the adjudicator, and no ex parte messages. If a point is made, it is made on the shared record, where the other side can read it and respond in the next round.

The arbitrator console is separate, and neither party sees the arbitrator's queue or notes. That is a workspace boundary, not a channel for one side's arguments. A decision must rest on submissions and evidence both parties filed and both can see.

The AI Adjudicator, in `ai` mode, works the same way: it reviews the written record only, separates agreed facts from contested points, groups the issues, and writes findings that cite the actual submissions. There is no hidden file for it to rely on.

Why No Caucuses Is a Fairness Feature

Caucuses can feel easier. You can vent or float a concession without the other side hearing it. It is fair to ask what is lost without them.

What is gained is verifiability. Neither party has to wonder what was said behind a closed door, whether a fact was presented that they never got to correct, or whether the decision-maker heard a version they could not answer. Rebuttal rounds only work if you can see what you are rebutting.

On-the-record process also disciplines the decision. When findings must cite submissions both sides can check, reasoning stays anchored to the shared record. Money awards add another anchor: they are bounded by the parties' own figures — never more than the claimant asked, never less than the respondent conceded — and awards are advisory by default unless both parties separately opted in to binding before submissions opened.

There is one deliberate exception. When screening escalates a submission in an AI mode, those process alerts go only to the arbitrator. That keeps a flagged, possibly heated message from inflaming the exchange before the arbitrator has handled it. It is a cooling mechanism, not a merits argument, and every screening score is audit-logged.

How This Differs From Mediation, Honestly

Mediation makes the opposite choice, for a legitimate reason. In mediation — including on MediatePlease, the sibling platform to DecidePlease™ — a mediator may meet privately with each side in caucus. Those conversations help a mediator explore settlement and carry offers between parties trying to reach their own agreement. Confidential caucuses serve negotiation.

Arbitration is not negotiation. An arbitrator or AI Adjudicator decides the dispute rather than helping the parties settle it themselves. When someone else will decide, both sides should see everything that decision is based on. That is why DecidePlease™ keeps arbitration fully on the record while MediatePlease keeps mediation's caucuses available.

Mediation can shield what you tell the mediator from the other party; arbitration on DecidePlease™ cannot, and you should file accordingly. What arbitration shields is your dispute from the public, while exposing the full case to both parties equally.

Filing With Open Eyes

Because everything is shared, write every submission as if the other party will read it carefully — because they will. State your facts and cite your evidence entries; there is nowhere off the record to put speculation.

That discipline is what lets both sides trust the award that follows, whether it comes from the AI Adjudicator, an AI-assisted human arbitrator, or a human arbitrator in `human` mode with no screening at all.

If you want a dispute decided privately from the public, but transparently between you and the other party — no caucuses, no back channels — DecidePlease™ is built that way. Open your access-code room, affirm the agreement together, and build a record you both stand behind.

FAQ

Is my DecidePlease™ case public? No. Cases live in private access-code rooms shared by both parties. They are not public court records or searchable filings.

Can I speak privately with the arbitrator about my case? No. There are no caucuses or side conversations with the adjudicator. Everything filed is visible to both parties at all times, which is a deliberate fairness feature.

What goes only to the arbitrator, not the other party? Screening escalation alerts and the arbitrator's own queue and notes stay in the separate arbitrator console. The submissions and evidence that the decision is based on are always shared with both parties.

General information, not legal advice. Related: arbitration-vs-mediation, how-online-arbitration-works, is-an-ai-arbitrator-fair