



Network Working Group                                         V. Kotecha
Internet-Draft                                           Consulate, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                           14 October 2025
Expires: 17 April 2026


                        Agentic Dispute Protocol
               draft-kotecha-agentic-dispute-protocol-00

Abstract

   This document specifies the Agentic Dispute Protocol (ADP), a
   standardized framework for autonomous agents and AI systems to file,
   process, and resolve disputes through structured, automated
   processes.  The protocol defines message formats, transport
   mechanisms, evidence submission standards, and cryptographic proof
   requirements for internet-native dispute resolution.

   ADP is designed to handle disputes arising from AI agent
   interactions, service level agreement breaches, and automated
   contract enforcement, providing deterministic, auditable, and legally
   enforceable outcomes.

   ADP includes chain of custody tracking, dual-format award
   specifications (JSON and PDF), arbitrator discovery mechanisms, and
   support for multiple resolution frameworks including expert
   determination, binding arbitration, mediation, and hybrid approaches.

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 17 April 2026.







Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Resolution Methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Actors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Message Flow  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Dispute Filing Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  Response Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.3.  Evidence Submission Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.4.  Award Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Transport and Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.1.  Transport Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.2.  Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.3.  Encryption  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.4.  Signatures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  Evidence Standards  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.1.  Evidence Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.2.  Cryptographic Proofs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.3.  Timestamping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  Chain of Custody and Audit Trail  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.1.  Custody Event Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.2.  Standard Event Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     9.3.  Cryptographic Linking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     9.4.  Verification Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.5.  Custody Chain Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. Dispute Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.1.  Filing Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.2.  Response Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.3.  Discovery Phase  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18



Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


     10.4.  Deliberation Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.5.  Award Phase  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   11. Interoperability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     11.1.  Service Discovery (.well-known)  . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     11.2.  Capability Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     11.3.  Protocol Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   12. Arbitrator Discovery and Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     12.1.  Registry Endpoint  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     12.2.  Arbitrator Manifest Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     12.3.  Selection Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     12.4.  Bias Auditing and Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   15. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   16. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Appendix A.  JSON Schema Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Appendix B.  Example Message Exchanges  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Appendix C.  Implementation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Appendix D.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26

1.  Introduction

   As autonomous AI agents and agentic systems increasingly conduct
   transactions, enter into contracts, and provide services on behalf of
   organizations, disputes inevitably arise that require resolution.
   While established alternative dispute resolution frameworks like the
   UNCITRAL Model Law on Conciliation [UNCITRAL-CONCILIATION], the
   Singapore Convention on Mediation [SINGAPORE-CONVENTION], and the
   U.S.  Administrative Dispute Resolution Act [ADRA] provide sound
   legal foundations, they lack the machine-readable protocols needed to
   handle the volume and velocity of agent-to-agent conflicts.

   The Agentic Dispute Protocol (ADP) provides a standardized, machine-
   readable framework for autonomous dispute resolution that is:

   *  Fast: Resolution in days, not months

   *  Scalable: Handles micro-disputes to multi-million dollar cases

   *  Transparent: All procedures and evidence are auditable

   *  Enforceable: Awards are cryptographically signed and legally
      binding

   *  Vendor-neutral: Open standard implementable by any dispute service

   *  Auditable: Complete chain of custody for all proceedings



Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   Consulate (https://consulatehq.com) serves as the reference
   implementation and first production deployment of ADP.

2.  Scope

   This protocol specifies:

   *  Message formats for dispute filing, response, evidence, and awards

   *  Transport and security requirements

   *  Evidence submission and validation standards

   *  Cryptographic proof mechanisms

   *  Chain of custody and audit trail requirements

   *  Dual-format award specifications (JSON and PDF)

   *  Arbitrator discovery and registry mechanisms

   *  Service discovery via .well-known URIs

   This protocol does NOT specify:

   *  Dispute rules or legal procedures (implementation-specific)

   *  AI neutral algorithms (implementation-specific)

   *  Fee structures (set by dispute provider)

   *  Enforcement mechanisms (jurisdiction-dependent)

3.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   Key terms:

   Agent:  An autonomous software system acting on behalf of an
      organization or individual

   Agentic System:  A system capable of autonomous decision-making and
      action



Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   Claimant:  The party initiating a dispute

   Respondent:  The party against whom a claim is filed

   Neutral:  A human or AI system adjudicating the dispute.  May be
      called an arbitrator, mediator, expert, or adjudicator depending
      on the resolution method chosen.

   Resolution Method:  The legal framework used to resolve the dispute
      (arbitration, mediation, expert determination, adjudication,
      etc.).  ADP is method-agnostic.

   Award/Decision:  The final determination issued by the neutral(s).
      Called an "award" in arbitration, "determination" in expert
      determination, "settlement agreement" in mediation.

   Dispute Service:  A server implementing ADP to coordinate dispute
      resolution

   Custody Event:  A recorded action in the dispute resolution process

   Chain of Custody:  An immutable, cryptographically-linked sequence of
      custody events

4.  Resolution Methods

   ADP is a method-agnostic communication protocol that supports
   multiple legal frameworks for dispute resolution.  The protocol
   defines how parties communicate (message formats, security, custody
   chain) but does NOT prescribe which legal framework must be used.

   The choice of resolution method is specified in the dispute agreement
   between parties and communicated via the resolutionMethod field in
   dispute messages.  Supported methods include:

   Expert Determination:  Technical disputes with objective metrics and
      liquidated damages clauses.  Expert determines facts and applies
      pre-specified formulas.  Commonly used for SLA breaches,
      performance disputes, and technical compliance issues.

   Binding Dispute:  Traditional dispute for disputes requiring legal
      judgment, subjective evaluation, or complex damages calculation.
      Enforced under the Federal Dispute Act or equivalent statutes.

   Mediation:  Non-binding collaborative resolution where a neutral
      mediator facilitates agreement between parties.  Used for disputes
      where preserving relationships is important.




Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   Hybrid:  Combines multiple methods, such as expert determination for
      technical issues followed by dispute for damages, or mediation
      with binding dispute as fallback.

   The protocol ensures all resolution methods benefit from the same
   security features (cryptographic signatures, chain of custody, dual-
   format awards) and interoperability standards regardless of the legal
   framework chosen.

   Implementers SHOULD clearly document which resolution methods they
   support in their service discovery manifest (see Section 9.1).

5.  Protocol Overview

5.1.  Architecture

   ADP follows a client-server model where:

   *  *Agents* (clients) submit dispute messages to an *Dispute Service*
      (server)

   *  The service processes the dispute according to pre-agreed dispute
      rules

   *  The service maintains a verifiable chain of custody for all
      actions

   *  The service issues cryptographically signed *Awards* in dual
      format (JSON and PDF)

   *  Parties retrieve awards and comply with remedies




















Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


        +----------+                    +----------+
        | Claimant |                    |Respondent|
        |  Agent   |                    |  Agent   |
        +----+-----+                    +-----+----+
             |                                |
             | (1) File Dispute               |
             |                                |
             v                                |
      +------+-------+                        |
      | Dispute  |<-(2) Notify Response---+
      |   Service    |
      |     (ADP)    |        +-------------+
      +--------------+        | Chain of    |
             |                | Custody Log |
             | (3) Evidence   +-------------+
             |     Submission       ^
             v                      |
      +------+-------+              |
      | Judge Panel  |--------------+
      |  (AI/Human)  |   Record Events
      +------+-------+
             |
             | (4) Issue Award (JSON + PDF)
             v
      +------+-------+
      |   Award      |
      |  Enforcement |
      +--------------+

5.2.  Actors

   *  *Claimant Agent*: Initiates dispute

   *  *Respondent Agent*: Defends against claim

   *  *Dispute Service*: Coordinates proceedings (ADP server)

   *  *Judge Panel*: Issues award

   *  *Evidence Stores*: IPFS, blockchain, centralized storage

   *  *Registry Service*: Tracks dispute agreements (optional)

   *  *Neutral Registry*: Discovery service for available neutrals







Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


5.3.  Message Flow

   Typical message exchange:

   1.  Claimant to Service: DISPUTE_FILING

   2.  Service to Respondent: DISPUTE_NOTIFICATION

   3.  Respondent to Service: DISPUTE_RESPONSE

   4.  Claimant to Service: EVIDENCE_SUBMISSION

   5.  Respondent to Service: COUNTER_EVIDENCE

   6.  Service to Panel: DELIBERATION_REQUEST

   7.  Panel to Service: AWARD (JSON + PDF)

   8.  Service to Both Parties: AWARD_NOTIFICATION

   Each step is recorded as a custody event in the immutable audit
   trail.

6.  Message Formats

   All messages MUST use JSON format [RFC8259] with the following base
   structure:

   {
     "@context": "https://w3id.org/adp/v1",
     "@type": "[MessageType]",
     "messageId": "[UUID]",
     "timestamp": "[ISO8601]",
     "sender": "[Agent URI]",
     "recipient": "[Agent URI]",
     "signature": "[JWS]",
     "payload": { ... }
   }

6.1.  Dispute Filing Message











Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   {
     "@type": "DisputeFiling",
     "payload": {
       "claimant": {
         "agentId": "agent://vendor.ai/agent-123",
         "organizationId": "org://vendor.ai",
         "publicKey": "[PEM]"
       },
       "respondent": {
         "agentId": "agent://consumer.ai/agent-456",
         "organizationId": "org://consumer.ai"
       },
       "claim": {
         "claimType": "SLA_BREACH",
         "claimAmount": {"value": 5000, "currency": "USD"},
         "contractReference": "ipfs://Qm...",
         "breachDetails": "Response time exceeded 200ms threshold"
       },
       "evidence": [
         {
           "evidenceId": "ev_abc123",
           "evidenceType": "SYSTEM_LOGS",
           "contentHash": "sha256:...",
           "storageUri": "ipfs://Qm..."
         }
       ],
       "disputeAgreement": {
         "agreementId": "arb_agreement_xyz",
         "rulesVersion": "ADP-v1.0",
         "resolutionMethod": "EXPERT_DETERMINATION",
         "signatureDate": "2025-01-01T00:00:00Z"
       }
     }
   }

6.2.  Response Message















Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   {
     "@type": "DisputeResponse",
     "payload": {
       "caseId": "case_abc123",
       "respondent": { ... },
       "response": {
         "admissions": ["claim_element_1"],
         "denials": ["claim_element_2", "claim_element_3"],
         "affirmativeDefenses": ["Force majeure"],
         "counterClaim": {
           "claimType": "BREACH_OF_CONTRACT",
           "claimAmount": {"value": 2000, "currency": "USD"}
         }
       },
       "evidence": [ ... ]
     }
   }

6.3.  Evidence Submission Message

   {
     "@type": "EvidenceSubmission",
     "payload": {
       "caseId": "case_abc123",
       "submittedBy": "claimant",
       "evidence": {
         "evidenceId": "ev_def456",
         "evidenceType": "API_LOGS",
         "description": "API response time measurements",
         "dateRange": {
           "start": "2025-10-01T00:00:00Z",
           "end": "2025-10-07T23:59:59Z"
         },
         "contentHash": "sha256:...",
         "storageUri": "ipfs://Qm...",
         "metadata": {
           "logSource": "cloudwatch",
           "recordCount": 15000,
           "validator": "https://validator.example.com"
         },
         "signature": "[JWS of evidence content]"
       }
     }
   }







Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


6.4.  Award Message

   Awards MUST be issued in dual format: machine-readable JSON and
   human-readable PDF.















































Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   {
     "@type": "DisputeAward",
     "payload": {
       "awardId": "award_xyz789",
       "caseId": "case_abc123",
       "issuedAt": "2025-10-20T15:00:00Z",
       "resolutionMethod": "EXPERT_DETERMINATION",
       "panel": [
         {"judgeId": "judge_1", "judgeType": "AI"},
         {"judgeId": "judge_2", "judgeType": "AI"},
         {"judgeId": "judge_3", "judgeType": "HUMAN"}
       ],
       "decision": {
         "outcome": "CLAIMANT_PREVAILS",
         "liability": "RESPONDENT_LIABLE",
         "damages": {"value": 5000, "currency": "USD"},
         "findings": "[Full text of findings]",
         "reasoning": "[Legal reasoning]",
         "remedy": "Respondent shall pay $5000 within 30 days"
       },
       "enforcement": {
         "complianceDeadline": "2025-11-20T00:00:00Z",
         "enforcementMechanism": "SMART_CONTRACT",
         "smartContractAddress": "0x..."
       },
       "formats": {
         "json": {
           "contentHash": "sha256:a948904f2f0f479b8f8197694b30184b...",
           "signature": "[JWS of JSON content]"
         },
         "pdf": {
           "documentUri":
             "https://api.consulatehq.com/awards/award_xyz789.pdf",
           "contentHash": "sha256:b849204f3f1f580c9f9298705c40295c...",
           "signature": "[JWS of PDF hash]",
           "pdfSignature": "[PKCS#7 embedded signature]"
         }
       },
       "signatures": [
         {"judgeId": "judge_1", "signature": "[JWS]"},
         {"judgeId": "judge_2", "signature": "[JWS]"},
         {"judgeId": "judge_3", "signature": "[JWS]"}
       ],
       "publicationStatus": "PUBLIC",
       "precedentialValue": "PERSUASIVE"
     }
   }




Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   The PDF format MUST conform to PDF/A standards for long-term archival
   and SHOULD include embedded digital signatures conforming to PAdES
   (PDF Advanced Electronic Signatures) standards.

7.  Transport and Security

7.1.  Transport Protocol

   All ADP messages MUST be exchanged over HTTPS (HTTP/2 or HTTP/3).

   Base endpoint format:

   https://[dispute-service]/adp/v1/[resource]

   Example endpoints:

   *  POST https://api.consulatehq.com/adp/v1/disputes

   *  GET https://api.consulatehq.com/adp/v1/disputes/{caseId}

   *  POST https://api.consulatehq.com/adp/v1/evidence

   *  GET https://api.consulatehq.com/adp/v1/custody/{caseId}

7.2.  Authentication

   Agents MUST authenticate using OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] or API keys (JWT
   [RFC7519]).

   Authorization header:

   Authorization: Bearer <JWT>

   JWT [RFC7519] MUST include:

   *  iss: Issuer (agent's organization)

   *  sub: Subject (agent ID)

   *  exp: Expiration timestamp

   *  aud: Audience (dispute service)

7.3.  Encryption

   *  TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] or higher REQUIRED

   *  Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) cipher suites REQUIRED



Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   *  Certificate validation REQUIRED

7.4.  Signatures

   All dispute filings, evidence, awards, and custody events MUST be
   cryptographically signed using JSON Web Signature (JWS) [RFC7515]
   with ECDSA (ES256 or ES384).

   Example JWS header:

   {
     "alg": "ES256",
     "typ": "JWT",
     "kid": "agent-key-123"
   }

8.  Evidence Standards

8.1.  Evidence Types

   ADP defines five standard evidence types:

   *  SYSTEM_LOGS: Server logs, API logs, error logs

   *  CONTRACTS: Service agreements, SLAs, terms

   *  COMMUNICATIONS: Messages, emails, notifications

   *  FINANCIAL: Transaction records, invoices, payments

   *  EXPERT: Third-party audits, certifications

   Additional evidence types MAY be defined by dispute services using
   namespaced identifiers (e.g., "x-custom-evidence-type").

8.2.  Cryptographic Proofs

   Evidence MUST include:

   *  SHA-256 content hash

   *  Timestamp (RFC 3161 [RFC3161] or blockchain-anchored)

   *  Digital signature from submitting party







Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


8.3.  Timestamping

   Timestamps MUST be:

   *  RFC 3161 [RFC3161] compliant, OR

   *  Blockchain-anchored (Bitcoin, Ethereum), OR

   *  Trusted timestamping service with verifiable audit trail

9.  Chain of Custody and Audit Trail

   ADP requires an immutable, verifiable chain of custody for all
   actions in the dispute resolution process.  This provides
   transparency, auditability, and enables appeals or external audits.

9.1.  Custody Event Structure

   Each custody event MUST conform to the following structure:

   {
     "@type": "CustodyEvent",
     "eventId": "evt_abc123def456",
     "caseId": "case_abc123",
     "eventType": "EVIDENCE_SUBMITTED",
     "timestamp": "2025-10-15T14:23:45Z",
     "actor": {
       "actorId": "agent://vendor.ai/agent-123",
       "actorType": "CLAIMANT_AGENT",
       "publicKey": "[PEM]"
     },
     "action": {
       "description": "Submitted API response time logs",
       "targetResource": "evidence://ev_def456",
       "actionData": {
         "evidenceId": "ev_def456",
         "evidenceType": "SYSTEM_LOGS"
       }
     },
     "integrity": {
       "contentHash": "sha256:...",
       "previousEventHash": "sha256:...",
       "signature": "[JWS of this event]"
     }
   }






Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


9.2.  Standard Event Types

   ADP defines the following standard custody event types:

   *  *DISPUTE_FILED*: Initial dispute submission

   *  *DISPUTE_NOTIFICATION_SENT*: Respondent notified

   *  *RESPONSE_SUBMITTED*: Respondent filed response

   *  *EVIDENCE_SUBMITTED*: Evidence added by either party

   *  *PANEL_ASSIGNED*: Arbitrators assigned to case

   *  *DELIBERATION_STARTED*: Panel begins review

   *  *DELIBERATION_COMPLETED*: Panel reaches decision

   *  *AWARD_ISSUED*: Final award published

   *  *AWARD_DELIVERED*: Award sent to parties

   *  *COMPLIANCE_VERIFIED*: Remedy compliance confirmed

   Services MAY define additional event types with "x-" prefix.

9.3.  Cryptographic Linking

   Custody events MUST be cryptographically linked in a Merkle chain
   style:

   1.  Each event includes the hash of the previous event in
       "previousEventHash"

   2.  The first event in a case has previousEventHash set to null or
       case creation hash

   3.  The contentHash is computed as SHA-256 of the canonical JSON
       representation (excluding the signature field)

   4.  Each event MUST be signed by the actor or the dispute service

   This creates an immutable chain where any tampering with an event
   will invalidate all subsequent event hashes.







Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


9.4.  Verification Procedures

   To verify the integrity of a custody chain:

   1.  Retrieve all custody events for the case in chronological order

   2.  Verify the signature of each event using the actor's public key

   3.  Recompute the contentHash of each event and compare with stored
       hash

   4.  Verify that each event's previousEventHash matches the prior
       event's contentHash

   5.  Verify timestamps are monotonically increasing

   If any verification step fails, the custody chain is compromised.

9.5.  Custody Chain Retrieval

   Services MUST provide an endpoint to retrieve the complete custody
   chain:

   GET /adp/v1/custody/{caseId}

   Response format:

   {
     "caseId": "case_abc123",
     "chainStatus": "VALID",
     "events": [
       { /* custody event 1 */ },
       { /* custody event 2 */ },
       ...
     ],
     "chainRoot": "sha256:...",
     "totalEvents": 8
   }

10.  Dispute Lifecycle

10.1.  Filing Phase

   *  Claimant submits DisputeFiling message

   *  Service validates message format and signature

   *  Service assigns case ID and notifies respondent



Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   *  Service confirms filing with timestamp

   *  Service records DISPUTE_FILED custody event

10.2.  Response Phase

   *  Respondent submits DisputeResponse within deadline

   *  Service validates response

   *  If no response, service MAY issue default judgment per dispute
      rules

   *  Service records RESPONSE_SUBMITTED custody event

10.3.  Discovery Phase

   *  Parties exchange EvidenceSubmission messages

   *  Service validates evidence format and signatures

   *  Service stores evidence hashes for integrity verification

   *  Service records EVIDENCE_SUBMITTED custody event for each
      submission

10.4.  Deliberation Phase

   *  Panel reviews all submissions

   *  Panel MAY request additional evidence or clarifications

   *  Panel deliberates according to agreed dispute rules

   *  Service records DELIBERATION_STARTED and DELIBERATION_COMPLETED
      events

10.5.  Award Phase

   *  Panel issues DisputeAward message in dual format (JSON + PDF)

   *  Service validates award signatures from all panel members

   *  Service delivers award to both parties

   *  Service publishes award if designated as public

   *  Service records AWARD_ISSUED and AWARD_DELIVERED custody events



Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   *  Parties have specified time to comply with remedy

11.  Interoperability

11.1.  Service Discovery (.well-known)

   Dispute services SHOULD publish capability manifest at:

   https://[domain]/.well-known/adp

   Example:

   {
     "disputeService": "https://api.consulatehq.com/adp/v1",
     "protocolVersion": "1.0",
     "supportedRules": ["Consulate-v1.0", "UNCITRAL-2021"],
     "supportedEvidenceTypes": [
       "SYSTEM_LOGS",
       "CONTRACTS",
       "COMMUNICATIONS",
       "FINANCIAL",
       "EXPERT"
     ],
     "maxClaimValue": 10000000,
     "supportedCurrencies": ["USD", "EUR", "ETH"],
     "features": {
       "chainOfCustody": true,
       "dualFormatAwards": true,
       "neutralDiscovery": true
     },
     "endpoints": {
       "disputes": "/adp/v1/disputes",
       "evidence": "/adp/v1/evidence",
       "custody": "/adp/v1/custody/{caseId}",
       "neutrals": "/.well-known/adp/neutrals"
     },
     "publicKeyEndpoint": "/.well-known/jwks.json",
     "pricingTiers": ["micro", "smb", "enterprise"]
   }

11.2.  Capability Negotiation

   Parties MAY negotiate protocol extensions via OPTIONS request to the
   dispute service endpoint.







Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


11.3.  Protocol Extensions

   Custom evidence types and message fields MAY be added with namespaced
   keys (e.g., "x-custom-field").  Services implementing such extensions
   SHOULD document them in their capability manifest.

12.  Arbitrator Discovery and Registry

   To enable transparent neutral selection, services SHOULD provide a
   discoverable registry of available neutrals.

12.1.  Registry Endpoint

   Arbitrator registries SHOULD be published at:

   https://[domain]/.well-known/adp/neutrals

   Example response:

   {
     "registryVersion": "1.0",
     "lastUpdated": "2025-10-10T00:00:00Z",
     "neutrals": [
       {
         "neutralId": "arb_human_001",
         "name": "Hon. Jane Smith",
         "type": "HUMAN",
         "qualifications": {
           "certifications": [
             "AAA Certified Arbitrator",
             "JAMS Panelist"
           ],
           "jurisdictions": ["US-CA", "US-NY", "US-TX"],
           "specializations": [
             "Technology Disputes",
             "SLA Breaches"
           ],
           "yearsExperience": 15,
           "casesCompleted": 342
         },
         "availability": {
           "status": "AVAILABLE",
           "nextAvailable": "2025-10-12T00:00:00Z",
           "maxCaseload": 10,
           "currentCaseload": 3
         },
         "publicKey": "[PEM public key]",
         "biasAudit": {



Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


           "lastAuditDate": "2025-07-01",
           "auditResults":
             "https://consulatehq.com/audits/arb_human_001",
           "fairnessScore": 0.94
         }
       },
       {
         "neutralId": "arb_ai_gpt4_001",
         "name": "GPT-4 Arbitrator Instance",
         "type": "AI",
         "qualifications": {
           "model": "gpt-4-turbo",
           "version": "2024-11-06",
           "specializations": [
             "Contract Interpretation",
             "Technical Disputes"
           ],
           "trainingData":
             "Trained on dispute case law through 2024",
           "casesCompleted": 15420
         },
         "availability": {
           "status": "AVAILABLE",
           "responseTime": "< 5 minutes"
         },
         "publicKey": "[PEM public key]",
         "biasAudit": {
           "lastAuditDate": "2025-09-15",
           "auditResults":
             "https://consulatehq.com/audits/arb_ai_gpt4_001",
           "fairnessScore": 0.91,
           "biasMetrics": {
             "genderBias": 0.02,
             "organizationSizeBias": 0.03,
             "claimAmountBias": 0.01
           }
         }
       }
     ],
     "selectionGuidelines":
       "https://consulatehq.com/docs/neutral-selection"
   }

12.2.  Arbitrator Manifest Structure

   Each neutral entry MUST include:

   *  *neutralId*: Unique identifier



Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   *  *type*: HUMAN or AI

   *  *qualifications*: Relevant credentials and experience

   *  *availability*: Current status and capacity

   *  *publicKey*: For signature verification

   Arbitrator entries SHOULD include:

   *  *biasAudit*: Transparency about bias testing results

   *  *specializations*: Types of disputes best suited for

   *  *performance metrics*: Historical data on timeliness and quality

12.3.  Selection Guidelines

   Services SHOULD provide guidelines for neutral selection.  ADP does
   not prescribe a specific selection algorithm but RECOMMENDS
   considering:

   *  Relevant qualifications and specializations

   *  Availability and response time requirements

   *  Historical performance metrics

   *  Bias audit results and fairness scores

   *  Party preferences (where permitted by dispute rules)

   *  Cost considerations

   For panels, services SHOULD ensure diversity in neutral types (e.g.,
   mixing AI and human neutrals) and backgrounds.

12.4.  Bias Auditing and Transparency

   To maintain trust in the dispute process, services implementing ADP
   SHOULD:

   1.  Conduct regular bias audits of both AI and human neutrals

   2.  Publish audit methodologies and results

   3.  Monitor for disparate impact across different types of parties




Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   4.  Implement corrective measures when bias is detected

   5.  Allow parties to challenge neutral assignments based on bias
       concerns

   Bias metrics MAY include analysis across dimensions such as
   organization size, claim amount, industry sector, jurisdiction, and
   party characteristics.

13.  Security Considerations

   *  *Replay attacks*: All messages include unique messageId and
      timestamp.  Services MUST reject messages with duplicate IDs or
      expired timestamps.

   *  *Man-in-the-middle*: TLS 1.3 with certificate pinning RECOMMENDED
      for high-value disputes.

   *  *Evidence tampering*: All evidence MUST be hashed and signed.
      Tampering is detectable via hash mismatch.  Chain of custody
      provides additional tamper detection.

   *  *Denial of service*: Services SHOULD implement rate limiting and
      require filing fees to prevent spam submissions.

   *  *Privacy*: Parties MAY encrypt evidence payloads with panel's
      public key.  Services SHOULD support confidential dispute upon
      request.

   *  *Key compromise*: Services MUST support key rotation and
      revocation.  Historical awards remain valid if signed before
      revocation.  Chain of custody events preserve pre-compromise
      integrity.

   *  *Chain of custody integrity*: The Merkle chain linking ensures any
      tampering with custody events is detectable.  Services MUST
      preserve complete custody chains for the duration of potential
      appeals.

   *  *PDF signature verification*: Dual-format awards require both JWS
      signatures (JSON) and PAdES signatures (PDF).  Both MUST be
      verified independently.

14.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests IANA to register:

   *  URI scheme: "agent://" for agent identification



Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   *  Media type: "application/aap+json" for ADP messages

   *  Well-known URI: /.well-known/adp for service discovery

   *  Well-known URI: /.well-known/adp/neutrals for neutral registry

   The JSON-LD context "https://w3id.org/adp/v1" will be registered with
   W3C for semantic interoperability.

15.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8259]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.

   [RFC7515]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
              Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

   [RFC6749]  Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
              RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.

   [RFC7519]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
              (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.

   [RFC3161]  Adams, C., Cain, P., Pinkas, D., and R. Zuccherato,
              "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Time-Stamp
              Protocol (TSP)", RFC 3161, DOI 10.17487/RFC3161, August
              2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3161>.

16.  Informative References




Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   [UNCITRAL-CONCILIATION]
              United Nations Commission on International Trade Law,
              "UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial
              Conciliation", 2002,
              <https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/
              commercial_conciliation>.

   [SINGAPORE-CONVENTION]
              United Nations, "United Nations Convention on
              International Settlement Agreements Resulting from
              Mediation (Singapore Convention on Mediation)", 2018,
              <https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/mediation/conventions/
              international_settlement_agreements>.

   [ADRA]     United States Congress, "Administrative Dispute Resolution
              Act of 1995", 1995, <https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-
              congress/senate-bill/1224>.

Appendix A.  JSON Schema Definitions

   Full JSON schemas for all ADP message types are published at:

   https://w3id.org/adp/v1/schema/

   Reference implementation schemas are available at:

   https://consulatehq.com/schema/adp/v1/

   GitHub repository with schemas, examples, and tooling:

   https://github.com/consulatehq/agentic-dispute-protocol

Appendix B.  Example Message Exchanges

   Complete examples of filing, response, evidence, custody events, and
   award message exchanges are available in the ADP repository:

   https://github.com/consulatehq/agentic-dispute-protocol

   These examples demonstrate common scenarios including:

   *  Simple SLA breach dispute with complete custody chain

   *  Multi-party dispute with counterclaim

   *  Confidential dispute with encrypted evidence

   *  Cross-border dispute with multiple currencies



Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                     ADP                      October 2025


   *  Dual-format award generation and verification

Appendix C.  Implementation Notes

   Consulate (https://consulatehq.com) provides the reference
   implementation of ADP with the following features:

   *  Full ADP v1.0 compliance

   *  REST and WebSocket APIs

   *  JavaScript/TypeScript SDK

   *  Real-time case status updates

   *  Complete chain of custody tracking

   *  Automated dual-format award generation (JSON + PDF)

   *  Arbitrator discovery and selection tools

   *  Integration with major AI agent platforms

   Implementers are encouraged to test interoperability with the
   Consulate reference implementation during development.

Appendix D.  Acknowledgments

   This protocol builds upon established alternative dispute resolution
   frameworks including the UNCITRAL Model Law on International
   Commercial Conciliation, the Singapore Convention on Mediation, and
   the U.S.  Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, adapting them for
   autonomous agent interactions and digital dispute resolution.

Author's Address

   Vivek Kotecha
   Consulate, Inc.
   United States of America
   Email: vivek@consulatehq.com
   URI:   https://consulatehq.com










Kotecha                   Expires 17 April 2026                [Page 26]
