Juries for disputes
When flags put an article in dispute (see Flags, disputes and governance), a jury of people qualified in its field decides whether to clear it or retract it. Governance then carries out the outcome on the blockchain. This is the first phase of the jury (DECISIONS D-150, D-151): the indexer draws the jury and counts the answers, and governance executes. Every step is public on the article’s dispute page, reached from the notice on a disputed article.
Who can sit on a jury
Section titled “Who can sit on a jury”A juror is someone who could write a review that counts toward the seal, judged as things stood when the flag that started the dispute was cast:
- a verified ORCID iD, declared at least 90 days before that flag;
- expertise in the article’s field: reputation 10 in its primary or secondary field, or 3 works in its area on OpenAlex. The reputation counts only when it came from at least three people, none of them an author or a flagger of the dispute, and was earned at least 90 days before the flag. Each of those people must have a verified ORCID iD or be an expert in the field by the same rules, and reputation that two addresses gave each other is ignored (seal rule version 6, D-163);
- no conflict of interest with any author or flagger: not the same ORCID iD, no Cabdell article written together within 3 years, no works in common on OpenAlex, not the same current employer. A flagger’s employers count only when an institution put them on the flagger’s ORCID record; of an author’s own entries, only the two most recent count.
The following people cannot sit:
- the article’s confirmed authors (someone declared as a co-author who never confirmed is not an author);
- the flaggers of the round;
- the governance address;
- anyone who sat on an earlier jury for the same article.
A person with several addresses is one person: one chance in the draw, by their ORCID iD.
The pool is frozen as soon as the dispute starts: the list of everyone eligible is fixed then, published on the dispute page with its fingerprint (a SHA-256 hash), and nobody can join it afterwards. A second jury, if needed, is drawn from the same list.
If the field is small, the jury is drawn from its whole area (reputation 10 in any field of the area). If that is still too few, it is drawn from everyone qualified anywhere on Cabdell. If even then there are fewer than five people, there is no jury: governance decides alone and must publish its reasons. This only happens while the network is young.
How the jury is drawn
Section titled “How the jury is drawn”The draw uses the seed of an Algorand block a few rounds after the flag that started the dispute. Each block’s seed comes from the network’s own randomness, so nobody can choose it or know it when flagging.
- The eligible people are ordered by SHA-256 of
seed|article|round|attempt|ORCID iD, smallest first. A person who verified several addresses sits with the first one they verified. - The first seven sit on the jury.
- The next ones are alternates, in that order.
The dispute page publishes the seed, its block, the frozen list and the whole ordered list, so anyone can repeat the draw.
Answering
Section titled “Answering”A juror is notified in their inbox (and in the browser if they turned notifications on), and the dispute page shows them a form. They read the article, the flags and the discussion, then sign one of three answers:
| Answer | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Clear | the flags are not founded; the article returns to its status |
| Retract | plagiarism, fabricated data or spam is shown; the article is retracted |
| Recuse | “I should not judge this”: a conflict the rules did not see, or no time. The next alternate takes the seat at once |
Clear and retract need reasons (at most 600 characters). Answers are signed, public and final: the first answer counts and cannot be changed. An answer is a note of a payment of 0 ALGO to oneself, like public lists: it costs only the network fee. While the jury sits, the dispute page shows which seats have answered but not what they answered, nor the count: each juror judges on their own. Everything is shown once the jury has finished.
Every moment (seven days, the deadline, an answer too late) is measured by the blockchain’s clock, the time of its blocks, never by the indexer’s: the outcome is the same whenever the indexer reads the blocks.
Every case
Section titled “Every case”| What happens | What follows |
|---|---|
| Five or more answers, and one side has two thirds of all seven seats (5 of 7) | the outcome is reached at once, even before the deadline |
| After 7 days, some jurors have not answered | each silent seat passes to the next alternate; the silent juror can no longer answer |
| At the 14-day deadline, at least five answers and two thirds for one side | that is the outcome (for example 4 of 5, 4 of 6, 5 of 7) |
| At the deadline, at least five answers but no two thirds (3–2, 3–3, 4–3) | no consensus: a second jury is drawn once, from people who were not on the first |
| At the deadline, fewer than five answers | a second jury is drawn once, from people who were not on the first |
| The second jury also reaches no outcome (no consensus or too few answers) | governance decides alone and publishes its reasons; nothing is cleared by default |
| The dispute ends before a jury is drawn (governance resolves it, the submitter retracts the article, or it expires) | no jury is drawn and nobody is summoned |
| Fewer than five qualified people even across Cabdell | no jury: governance decides alone and publishes its reasons |
| An answer after the deadline, after the juror’s seat passed on, a second answer, or from someone without a seat | kept on the page, marked “not counted” with the reason |
| The article is disputed again later (a new round) | a new jury, without anyone who sat on an earlier one for this article |
What governance does
Section titled “What governance does”Governance resolves the dispute on the blockchain as the jury decided, within 7 days of the outcome. The dispute page says which of these happened:
| Shown | Meaning |
|---|---|
| carried out | governance resolved the dispute as the jury decided |
| against the jury’s outcome | governance resolved it the other way: visible to everyone |
| before the jury’s outcome | governance acted before the jury finished |
| decided by governance | no jury could decide (too few people, or two juries without an outcome): governance decided alone |
| not carried out yet | more than 7 days have passed since the outcome (for a retraction, since the outcome or since governance may retract, whichever is later) |
The contract (v4, D-163) sets limits of its own, whatever the jury decides:
- Retraction waits 14 days. Governance can retract a disputed article only once 14 days have passed since the dispute started. A jury that reaches “retract” sooner (five of seven seats agreeing early) can be carried out only when that time has come, and the 7 days governance has to carry it out count from then. Clearing has no wait.
- Reasons on the record. Every resolution by governance records on the blockchain the CID of a published text with its reasons, and who resolved the dispute.
- The author may retract. During the dispute the submitter can retract the article; that ends the dispute, with no need for a verdict.
- Sixty days at most. If the article is still disputed 60 days after the dispute started, anyone can end the dispute. The article returns to the status it had, even if the jury decided otherwise, and the flaggers’ bonds are kept by the application. When the dispute page compares the end with the jury’s outcome, an expiry counts as a clearance and the submitter’s own retraction as a retraction.
Where the flaggers’ bonds go depends on the end: back to them after a retraction, half to the article’s submitter and half kept after a clearance, all kept after an expiry (see Flags, disputes and governance).
In a later phase the contract itself will take the jury’s verdict, without governance.