Three rulings. One went against the party who paid.
We are new, so we cannot claim hundreds of rulings. Here instead is exactly what one looks like.
The six parts of a ruling.
Each part is written so that a sceptical reader who was not there can check the reasoning.
- Determination
- Qualified or not qualified. There is no grade or score.
- Criterion table
- One decision for each criterion, with the evidence relied on. Contested criteria are marked, even if the objection failed.
- The failed check
- Where a criterion failed: what the losing side argued, and why it fails.
- Counterfactual
- What would have changed the outcome. This makes the ruling testable and tells a losing party what to fix.
- Scope note
- What is not decided: anyone’s conduct, the quality of the conversation or the commercial outcome.
- Right of reply
- Either side has fourteen days to respond on the record. The reply does not change the ruling but is always published with it.
Why we chose these three.
0031 rules against an agency. 0044 rules against the party who paid, which makes 0031 credible. 0057 shows the method on a hard case.
Six criteria met, one failed. The meeting does not count.
The account had 14 employees. The ICP floor, agreed in writing at campaign start, was 50. The agency argued the business was growing fast and close enough.
That argument fails. Size can be checked, and the account is below the floor. An ICP that could be met approximately could not be ruled on.
MV-2026-0031 · STANDARD V1.0
Specimen
“Close enough” is not a finding.
- Failed
- Criterion 2, Fit.
- Evidence
- Companies House records 14 employees against an ICP floor of 50 agreed at campaign start.
- Settlement
- The fee goes back to the buyer. Submitted count +1, cleared count unchanged.
The buyer’s objection had no evidence. The meeting stands.
The buyer said their own team had contacted the account earlier in the year. They produced no CRM record, and the account was not on their suppression list.
The buyer may be right. But a criterion cannot fail on a claim nobody can evidence. Under rule R2, the objector must prove the objection.
What would have changed it: a CRM record of an open or recently closed opportunity, or the account on the suppression list. Either would have failed criterion 7.
MV-2026-0044 · STANDARD V1.0
Specimen
The party who commissioned it lost it.
- Objection
- Criterion 7, Novelty. Prior contact claimed.
- Evidence
- No CRM record produced. Not on the buyer’s own suppression list.
- Settlement
- The fee stands. Submitted and cleared counts each +1.
A close call, decided at a second sitting a week later.
The first message offered a 20 minute “benchmarking conversation”. The calendar invitation the attendee accepted named the vendor and called it an introduction. That needed more than the usual fifteen minutes to decide.
Under rule R6 it went to a second sitting a week later. The first sitting recorded no view, so the second could not just agree with it. Under R3 the invitation decided it: it is what the attendee acted on.
The buyer’s reply. Filed within fourteen days, it accepts the reasoning on the invitation but says “the first message was misleading”. The agency has agreed to stop using a research framing on this campaign. The reply is recorded with no further finding and published with the ruling.
MV-2026-0057 · STANDARD V1.0
Specimen
The hard call, with the working shown.
- Held over
- Criterion 5, Consent. Decided at a second sitting on 3 September 2026.
- Rule R3
- Prefer the record made at the time over either party’s later account.
- Reply
- Filed by the buyer on 5 September 2026 and printed on the ruling.
What a ruling does not do.
Both parties choose binding or advisory when they sign. Advisory is the default. Binding is required when a fee is held in escrow.
Test the method on one of your own meetings.
You get a ruling in two business days, sent to both sides at the same time.