Before you spenda professional fee.
Five commissioning guides
Who commissions, when, what to prepare, what you receive, what it will not do, what else might fit, and how confidentiality works.
- Evaluate a disputeEarly Neutral EvaluationA
- Review a major decisionIndependent Decision Evaluation (Clarity DeepView™ or a panel)B
- Keep a relationship movingStanding Evaluator, standing neutral or dispute boardC
- Resolve a technical questionExpert Review or Expert DeterminationD
- Build an evaluation capabilityEvaluation CapabilityE
Pathway A · Early Neutral Evaluation
Evaluate a dispute.
Understand the case before the case consumes the relationship.
(The question)
“What do the evidence and the likely outcomes suggest, before we escalate?”
- Who commissions
- Opposing parties jointly, lawyers on instruction, or participants following an authorised referral process
- When
- A claim is threatened or filed; positions are hardening; costs are about to rise
- Trigger
- Disputes over contract performance, payment, obligations, liability or the likely outcome of formal proceedings.
- Protocol
- A · Joint-party evaluation
Prepare
- The contract and relevant correspondence
- Each party’s short position paper
- Key evidence each relies on
- Any expert reports already obtained
You receive
A written merits assessment with an issue map, competing positions, evidential gaps, potential outcome scenarios and a non-binding evaluative view. Distribution as agreed in the joint mandate.
- It will not: guarantee a settlement
- It will not: advocate for either side or act as legal representative
- It will not: produce an enforceable judgement
(Also)
Must include
Consent of the parties; Equality of procedural opportunity; The applicable legal context; Confidentiality and any admissibility rules.
Other routes that may fit better
Mediation, if the parties need help agreeing more than a view of the merits; expert determination, if they want a binding answer on a defined issue; litigation or arbitration where a binding, enforceable outcome is needed.
Confidentiality
Confidential and usually without prejudice, as agreed in advance. Whether the view may be shown to a court is settled in the mandate.
Scoping pathway
Initial triage → scoping memorandum → conflict disclosure → written mandate → evaluation.
Pathway B · Independent Decision Evaluation (Clarity DeepView™ or a panel)
Review a major decision.
Challenge the assumptions before the commitment.
(The question)
“Are the key claims, assumptions and risks sound enough to decide?”
- Who commissions
- A board chair, special committee, general counsel, investor, project sponsor or duly authorised leadership body
- When
- A specific proposal with material financial, technical or governance uncertainty is coming to a decision
- Trigger
- Large strategic decisions, conflicts of interest, acquisitions, investment proposals or high-stakes technical alternatives.
- Protocol
- B · Single-commissioner decision review
Prepare
- The proposal or board paper
- The business case and model
- Evidence for key assumptions
- Management’s risk assessment
You receive
An assessment of a precisely framed proposition: evidence quality, unsupported assumptions, credible alternatives, foreseeable risks, what remains unknown and which conclusions are defensible.
- It will not: give audit assurance
- It will not: give regulatory clearance
- It will not: give investment advice, unless separately qualified and commissioned
- It will not: replace the decision authority, which stays with the client
(Also)
Must include
Commissioner disclosure; Independent terms; Access and interview limitations stated; Sector-specific expertise; decision authority retained by the client.
Other routes that may fit better
Internal audit or risk review, a regulated valuation, or specialist due diligence where a licensed opinion is required.
Confidentiality
Confidential to the commissioner. The report states who commissioned it, the access given and who was not heard.
Scoping pathway
Initial triage → scoping memorandum → conflict disclosure → written mandate → evaluation.
Pathway C · Standing Evaluator, standing neutral or dispute board
Keep a relationship moving.
Independent judgement available while the relationship is still working.
(The question)
“Who can give trusted assessments as the contract or project evolves?”
- Who commissions
- JV partners, contracting parties, major-project participants or family-enterprise stakeholders, by agreement
- When
- At signing, or early in delivery, before the first serious difference
- Trigger
- Recurring interpretation, payment, quality, governance or interface concerns over a long relationship.
- Protocol
- A · Joint-party evaluation
Prepare
- The contract and its change mechanism
- Programme and reporting
- An issues log
- Agreed activation and response rules
You receive
A recurring issue-review protocol, case-specific evaluative notes or recommendations, and documented issue closure.
- It will not: automatically replace a formal dispute board where the contract requires one
- It will not: manage the project
- It will not: take one party’s side in a later dispute
(Also)
Must include
Access rights and conflict renewals; Frequency of briefings and activation criteria; Which requests need both parties; Fee structure and precise limits of any binding power.
Other routes that may fit better
A dispute board under the contract (for example FIDIC 2017), or ad hoc evaluation when issues arise.
Confidentiality
As set in the appointment; usually confidential to the parties.
Scoping pathway
Initial triage → scoping memorandum → conflict disclosure → written mandate → evaluation.
Pathway D · Expert Review or Expert Determination
Resolve a technical question.
Resolve the question that turns on specialist knowledge.
(The question)
“What value, measurement, cause or calculation follows from the agreed method?”
- Who commissions
- Parties to contractual price, earn-out, engineering, quality, measurement or other technical questions
- When
- A disagreement turns on a specialist question that experts can answer
- Trigger
- An agreed methodology exists or can be defined, but the result is disputed.
- Protocol
- A · Joint-party evaluation
Prepare
- The contract clause and agreed method
- Data, measurements or accounts
- Each party’s technical submission
You receive
Expert findings on the question, the methodology and the evidence. Binding variant only under a distinct expert determination agreement and applicable law, never an enhanced evaluation report.
- It will not: decide questions outside the defined issue
- It will not: act without the right specialist qualification
- It will not: become binding unless the parties agree that it should
(Also)
Must include
Documented credentials; An agreed method; Consequences of non-participation; Review and challenge rights; publication and admissibility rules.
Other routes that may fit better
Party-appointed experts in litigation or arbitration; a regulated valuation where the law requires one.
Confidentiality
As agreed in the determination or evaluation agreement.
Scoping pathway
Initial triage → scoping memorandum → conflict disclosure → written mandate → evaluation.
Pathway E · Evaluation Capability
Build an evaluation capability.
Make independent review an organisational practice, not a one-off emergency.
(The question)
“How can this organisation commission independent assessments reliably?”
- Who commissions
- Organisations with recurring decisions, transactions or disputes
- When
- Decisions or disputes recur, and each one starts from scratch
- Trigger
- Inconsistent escalation, a lack of trusted independent scrutiny, or recurring costly contract issues.
- Protocol
- B · Single-commissioner decision review
Prepare
- Current decision and dispute procedures
- Contract templates
- Recent matters that escalated
You receive
A commissioning policy, model contract clauses, role and competency matrices, approval thresholds, specialist panel selection, training and quality review.
- It will not: certify the organisation’s legal compliance
- It will not: run its decisions for it
- It will not: guarantee fewer disputes
(Also)
Must include
Internal conflicts and procurement safeguards; Locally reviewed legal texts; Governance of any supplier panel.
Other routes that may fit better
Internal review functions, ombuds programmes or panel arrangements with other institutions.
Confidentiality
Confidential to the organisation.
Scoping pathway
Initial triage → scoping memorandum → conflict disclosure → written mandate → evaluation.