§ 01 · Definition
Tailored mediation is alternative dispute resolution scoped to the specific matter — its technical character, its scale, its venue, and the parties' tolerance for risk.
Standard mediation runs to a template: opening session, caucuses, settlement architecture, term sheet. The template works for matters where the dispute is fundamentally about money, fault, or relationship. It does not work as well — and often fails outright — when the dispute is about whether a particular file existed on a particular device on a particular date, whether a model behaved as advertised, or whether a smart contract executed as intended.
Tailored mediation begins with the question of what kind of resolution this matter actually needs, and only then designs the process to produce it. Sometimes that is a single-day mediation. Sometimes it is a multi-week shuttle diplomacy. Sometimes it is a forensic investigation that produces a finding the parties have, in advance, agreed to treat as authoritative — and the case settles within hours of the report being shared.
§ 02 · Origins
A practice shaped by twenty years at the intersection of law and technology.
Wave I — eDiscovery (2006-2014)
Procedural neutrals
The 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules and the Sedona Conference made the eDiscovery special master a recognized appointment. The role was procedural — about how to produce — but it established that some disputes require a neutral fluent in the underlying technology.
Wave II — Substantive technology (2014-2023)
Substantive technical neutrals
Software disputes stopped being about how the software was managed and started being about what the software did. Source-code review protocols, smart-contract autopsy, IoT data-integrity findings — these were no longer skirmishes. They were the merits.
Wave III — AI and autonomous systems (2024-)
Tailored mediation
The JAMS AI Disputes Clause and Rules formalized the recognition that ADR for machine-behavior disputes requires custom-fit process. Tailored mediation is the practice that meets that moment — not by abandoning the conventional craft, but by adapting it to the matter.
§ 03 · Five Characteristics
What makes a mediation tailored.
Adapted to the matter
Process designed around the dispute's actual structure, not retrofitted to a template.
Technically fluent
The neutral can read what the dispute is about — not just hear about it through experts.
Evidence-converging
Where verifiable facts can collapse the distance between positions, they are produced and shared.
Confidentiality-tiered
Protective orders distinguish weights, training data, source code, and outputs into separate access levels.
Speed-disciplined
Protocols issue within days; findings within weeks; awards within 60–90 days of hearings.
§ 04 · When the model fits
Indicators that tailored mediation is the right choice.
SIGNALS YES
- The dispute turns on a question of fact only an expert can resolve
- Source code, model weights, or proprietary algorithms are at issue
- Standard ADR has been tried and stalled on a technical disagreement
- Parties want a defensible technical finding that admits in court if needed
- Cross-border evidence collection is required
- The matter exceeds $5M exposure with TB-scale ESI
- A protective order needs to distinguish access tiers for sensitive technical material
SIGNALS NO
- Matter has no technical dimension; standard mediation is sufficient
- Dispute is fundamentally about damages quantification with no fact disputes
- Parties expressly reject neutral fact-finding by stipulation
- The matter requires unique subject-matter expertise outside Daniel's scope (e.g. heavy industry, biopharma)
§ 05 · Compared to standard mediation
See the side-by-side.
Tailored mediation is not a replacement for standard mediation; it is a different tool for a different class of dispute. The comparison page walks through process, neutral, timeline, evidence handling, and outcomes.
Tailored vs. Standard Mediation