compare-arbitrator-candidates-against-selection-criteria

name	compare-arbitrator-candidates-against-selection-criteria
task_id	arbitration-international-dispute-resolution/compare-arbitrator-candidates-against-selection-criteria
description	Ensures candidate evaluation applies conflict-screening guidance rigorously, surfaces availability and prejudgment concerns, and produces a weighted ranking with explicit threshold screening.
activates_for	["planner","solver","checker"]

Skill: Arbitrator Candidate Evaluation

1. Subject-matter triage

• Treat the task as a comparative advisory evaluation of proposed chair candidates, not a generic biography summary.
• Identify the governing selection matrix first: eligibility floors, weighted criteria, any mandatory exclusions, and any tie-breaker or preference rules.
• If the source materials include multiple candidates, multiple criteria, or multiple hearing dates, enumerate them explicitly before analysis and keep the comparison one candidate at a time.
• Separate three questions from the start: qualification, disqualification screening, and weighted ranking.

2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

• Classifying disclosed relationships without applying the relevant lookback period, which misstates whether a relationship is still within the disclosure window.
• Treating a disclosed contact as dispositive without distinguishing automatic exclusion, disclosure-only, waiver-eligible, or no-action treatment.
• Not translating an availability conflict into hearing-by-hearing practical impact.
• Ignoring minimum floor requirements on individual criteria and improperly letting a high aggregate score override a shortfall.
• Failing to distinguish general expertise from a specific prior position that may create prejudgment concern.
• Omitting patterned outcome history where it is relevant corroborating context rather than a standalone disqualifier.
• Collapsing the whole comparison into narrative praise without a scored, criterion-by-criterion ranking.
• Stating conclusions without tying them to the governing selection rule or ethics standard that supports the inference.

3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

• Apply the conflict framework used in the materials or, if none is specified, a standard arbitration disclosure analysis: identify relationships that require exclusion, disclosure with possible waiver, disclosure only, or no action.
• Apply the stated lookback period for recurring relationship types; if the relationship falls outside the window, assess whether it is still material enough to disclose.
• Apply any hard eligibility floors in the selection criteria as presumptive disqualifiers even when the weighted total is strong.
• Evaluate availability against the actual hearing calendar, including prep sessions and reserved hearing blocks, not just the headline hearing period.
• Treat prior publications, speeches, or public positions as prejudgment concerns only when they speak specifically to the disputed issue, not merely because they show subject-matter expertise.
• Treat outcome patterns as contextual evidence that may reinforce other concerns; do not convert pattern alone into automatic exclusion unless the governing standard says so.
• Cite the controlling standard, rule, statute, treaty article, ethics provision, or institutional guideline whenever a legal or procedural conclusion depends on it.

4. Analytical scaffolds

• Build a candidate-by-criterion matrix and score every candidate against every stated criterion.
• Before weighing totals, screen each candidate for:
  • mandatory exclusions,
  • disclosure obligations,
  • waiver-eligible conflicts,
  • material but non-disqualifying concerns,
  • any minimum floor shortfall.
• For each disclosed relationship, record:
  • the relationship type,
  • the applicable disclosure treatment,
  • the lookback assessment,
  • whether the item is still material outside the lookback,
  • the practical consequence for appointment suitability.
• For each availability issue, state:
  • the affected dates or blocks,
  • whether the conflict is partial or total,
  • whether it affects the chair role in practice,
  • whether scheduling mitigation is realistic.
• For each prior statement or publication, state:
  • the issue it addresses,
  • whether the issue is the same as the dispute issue,
  • whether the concern is expertise, prejudgment, or both,
  • the downstream effect on neutrality perception.
• For each criterion score, give a short rationale linked to the source materials and the applicable standard.
• If a candidate fails a floor requirement, mark the candidate as presumptively excluded from the ranking and explain whether any residual consideration remains for record purposes.
• Weight the final ranking according to the stated matrix; if weights are absent, infer a sensible hierarchy from the selection criteria and say so.

5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

• Compare candidates against the same criteria in the same order so the reader can see differences cleanly.
• Preserve temporal sequence for conflicts and disclosures: older relationships, current relationships, and future scheduling commitments should not be blended.
• Distinguish chair-specific needs from general arbitrator competence; the chair role often places extra weight on case management, neutrality signaling, and schedule reliability.
• When one issue affects another, state the interaction explicitly: for example, a high score on expertise does not cure a scheduling miss or a floor shortfall.
• If the record contains multiple dispute issues, analyze publication or predisposition concerns issue-by-issue rather than as a single global assessment.

6. Output structure conventions

• Use a scored ranking memo format, not a narrative profile.
• Open with a short executive view identifying the leading candidate, any presumptive exclusions, and the key reasons.
• Include a comparison table with each candidate against each criterion, including the score and a brief rationale.
• Include a screening section that isolates disqualification issues, threshold failures, and disclosure concerns before the ranking discussion.
• Include a conflicts section that classifies each disclosed relationship and states the lookback result and disclosure consequence.
• Include an availability section that explains the practical effect on the scheduled hearing calendar.
• Include a ranking section that explains the weighting logic and why the selected order follows from the criteria.
• End with a Recommended Actions block that uses imperatives, identifies the responsible role, and ties each step to a timing anchor or milestone.
• Keep the memo self-contained and readable in plain text, even if it will later be placed into a DOCX file.
• Do not rely on tables alone for legal conclusions; every material conclusion should be stated in a sentence that cites the governing authority or selection rule by name.