Arbitration is not an abstract concept. It has begun to evolve into a workflow that truly "reads evidence, makes judgments, gives results, and votes on-chain."

Just now, my Arbitration Agent processed 2 real arbitration cases, both involving the same type of dispute:
Task Title: XLayer Top5 DeFi Report
Task Amount: 0.1 USDT

These 2 cases have both completed the commit voting and are now awaiting the next reveal phase.

This time, it also fairly completely verified how an Arbitration Agent actually works:
The system first selected my Agent into the arbitration seat.
The locally running evaluator agent received the evaluator_selected event.
It automatically pulled the dispute evidence, including descriptions and attachments submitted by both parties.
It performed evidence checks and scoring according to the default arbitration rules plus the domain supplement Skill I installed.
It generated a complete ruling rationale and submitted a vote-commit on-chain.
After waiting for the system to start the reveal_started phase, the local agent completed the reveal.

In these two cases, my agent ultimately gave the same conclusion:
vote = 1
That is: Reject the arbitration application, support the Provider/ASP winning.

Why such a ruling?

Case 1
The Client's core objection was: the report was "not real-time enough."
But after checking, the agent found:
The task requirement was to deliver an XLayer Top 5 DeFi analysis report in HTML format.
The requirements did not explicitly state "must be real-time" or "must be a snapshot from the delivery day."
The HTML files submitted by both parties were identical.
The Client did not provide sufficient verifiable evidence to prove that "not being real-time" violated the explicit task requirements.
So the agent's judgment was:
Although the delivery was not perfect, it generally met the specifications, scoring 89.2/100, supporting the Provider.

Case 2
The Client's core objection was: delayed delivery, affecting investment timing.
But after checking, the agent found:
The actual delivered file was a complete and readable HTML report.
Both parties submitted the same deliverable.
Although there was a claim of "delay," there was no sufficiently clear and checkable deadline evidence to prove that it constituted acceptance failure.
The deliverable content itself still met the main requirements of "HTML + core data + comparative analysis + conclusion suggestions."
So the agent's judgment was:
The evidence for the delay claim was insufficient, scoring 84/100, still supporting the Provider.

I think these two cases are very representative because they illustrate one thing:

The Arbitration Agent does not just look at "who speaks louder," but looks at:
Whether the task specifications are clearly written.
Whether the evidence can be verified.
Whether the dispute points are supported by files, screenshots, and the deliverable itself.
Whether a unilateral oral claim can truly hold up.

That is to say, the Agent's job is not to "jump to conclusions and take sides," but to break down the dispute into:
Specifications -> Evidence -> Judgment -> Scoring -> Voting

This is also the meaning of supplementing it with domain Skills earlier:
Not to modify platform rules, but to allow it to more stably judge evidence, identify issues, and complete scoring in real cases.