resolve-dispute

name	resolve-dispute
user-invocable	false
description	Resolves stuck review findings via a put-up-or-concede exchange. Invoked by the facilitator when a finding survives arbitration without new evidence.

A review finding is stuck. Structure its resolution in three steps.

Step 1 — Frame the dispute. Identify and state aloud:

• The disputed finding (one sentence)
• Who holds it
• The facilitator's prior arbitration ruling (one sentence)

Step 2 — Send the reviewer this message, substituting [finding] with the actual finding:

Your finding — [finding] — was arbitrated. To keep it open, you must provide ONE of: (a) A concrete failure scenario: specific inputs or conditions that produce wrong behavior (b) A source citation: file, line number, and what it shows (c) A direct counterexample to the arbitration reasoning

One response. No response counts as concession. After that, the facilitator rules and the finding is DECIDED.

Step 3 — Rule and tag.

After the reviewer responds:

• Evidence present → the facilitator evaluates it on the merits and rules. Tag the finding DECIDED regardless of outcome.
• No evidence → the facilitator tags DECIDED, asks the reviewer to re-score.
• No response → the facilitator tags DECIDED.

DECIDED findings cannot be re-raised without new substance. This enforces the existing "Don't regurgitate decided points" rule.

What this skill must not do:

• Override a finding backed by real evidence
• Auto-resolve — the facilitator still decides after hearing the evidence
• Apply to first-round disagreements — use normal arbitration first
• Suppress legitimate concerns — evidence always reopens the door