> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.kleros.io/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # How It Works > How a Kleros Enterprise dispute runs, from complaint to ruling: the process and timings, the Dispute Policy, how evaluators are selected and paid, and the due process guarantees. # How Kleros Enterprise Works This page covers the standard process for private sector implementations, the ruleset evaluators apply, who the evaluators are, and the procedural guarantees built into every case. *** ## The Dispute Resolution Process | Step | Action | | - | - | | 1 | An incident occurs and the customer raises a complaint with the company's support team | | 2 | Support evaluates the case and provides a response | | 3 | If the response is unfavorable, the customer is offered escalation to Kleros | | 4 | The customer completes a simple online form in about 5 minutes, submitting their claim and evidence | | 5 | Kleros uses AI to help improve the clarity of the customer's submission, without altering the facts | | 6 | The company submits its response and documentation | | 7 | Both submissions are shared with the customer, who has 24 hours to review and amend | | 8 | After 24 hours, the case is opened in the Kleros court | | 9 | Independent evaluators, selected at random, review both sides and vote with written justification | | 10 | A resolution is reached within 3 days | | 11 | Both parties are notified of the outcome by email | ### Outcome | Outcome | What happens | | - | - | | Claimant wins | The organization complies with the ruling under the agreed terms of the Dispute Policy | | Organization wins | The claimant does not receive payment but keeps the right to pursue traditional legal channels | ### Timing | Phase | Duration | | - | - | | Claim submission | About 5 minutes | | Review and amendment window | 24 hours | | Evaluator deliberation | Up to 3 days | | Total from submission to decision | Typically under 5 days | All cases, their progress, and individual evaluator votes with reasoning are publicly visible on the Kleros platform. *** ## The Dispute Policy **The Dispute Policy is the ruleset agreed between the organization and Kleros before any case is submitted.** It defines how each type of case should be resolved and incorporates the applicable law for the jurisdiction and dispute type. In consumer disputes between an Argentine company and its Argentine users, for example, the Dispute Policy instructs evaluators to apply consumer protection law and other applicable regulations. In insurance disputes, it references the relevant policy terms and regulatory standards. The Dispute Policy means evaluators do not make subjective or arbitrary decisions: every ruling is grounded in pre-agreed, auditable rules. ### How it is created | Step | Action | | - | - | | 1 | The organization describes the types of disputes it needs to resolve and the rules it wants applied | | 2 | Kleros and the organization agree on the policy language, incorporating the applicable legal framework | | 3 | The Dispute Policy is reviewed and finalized | | 4 | The policy is fixed for the duration of the pilot or integration period | ### How evaluators use it Evaluators receive three inputs for each case and apply the Dispute Policy to the arguments and evidence of both sides: | Input | Source | | - | - | | Claimant submission | Evidence and arguments submitted through the form | | Organization response | Documentation and counter-arguments submitted by the organization | | Dispute Policy | The agreed ruleset, which incorporates the applicable law | ### Examples by sector * **Fintech and consumer disputes:** the policy references Argentine consumer protection law and the company's terms of service. Evaluators assess whether the company acted within its published terms and whether the consumer's legal rights were respected. * **Insurance:** the policy references the insurance policy terms and conditions. The question for evaluators is: given the evidence and the policy terms, should the claim be paid? * **Municipal and public sector:** the policy references the applicable consumer protection legislation (for example, Argentina's Ley de Defensa del Consumidor) and any local regulations. *** ## Who Evaluates the Cases Evaluators are independent. They do not represent Kleros, the organization or the claimant. They are selected and verified before they can take part, and their compensation is tied to performing their role correctly. Evaluators are called **jurors** in other Kleros materials. It is the same role. ### Selection criteria Criteria are defined together with the organization during onboarding and can include: | Criterion type | Example | | - | - | | Professional qualification | Licensed lawyers in a specific jurisdiction (for example, Argentine lawyers for consumer disputes) | | Age requirements | Citizens over 18 | | Subject-matter expertise | Knowledge of consumer protection law, insurance policy terms or intellectual property | | Geographic requirements | Residents of a specific country or region | The platform verifies evaluators against these criteria before they can take any case. The organization does not interact with evaluators directly: the Kleros protocol governs the evaluator pool. ### How they are chosen for each case Evaluators are selected at random from the qualified pool for each case. The number of evaluators per case (1, 3, 5, 7 or more) is agreed in advance with the organization. Random selection prevents systematic bias toward either party and ensures no single evaluator can repeatedly influence outcomes. ### Incentives Evaluators who perform their role correctly receive compensation; evaluators who do not fulfil it face penalties. Performing the role correctly means: * Reading the evidence submitted by both sides carefully * Applying the Dispute Policy as agreed with the organization, rather than personal opinion * Reaching a decision in line with how a reasonable, well-informed evaluator would assess the same case * Meeting the deadlines set for the case Lazy or biased decisions cost evaluators money; careful, well-reasoned decisions earn it. See [Game Theory](/concepts/game-theory) for the mechanism behind this. ### Independence * **No affiliation to Kleros:** evaluators are independent citizens or professionals, not employees or contractors of Kleros. * **No affiliation to the organization:** evaluators are not selected from within the organization or any related party. * **No affiliation to the claimant:** evaluators have no prior relationship with the claimant. *** ## Due Process Guarantees Kleros is built with procedural guarantees that meet the standards expected by enterprise compliance teams and regulatory bodies. | Guarantee | How it is implemented | | - | - | | Right of defense | Both parties are notified electronically and can present arguments and evidence before any decision is made | | Impartiality | Evaluators are selected independently and at random from a verified pool, and represent neither party | | Right of appeal | A double-instance appeals system: a new, larger panel re-examines the case independently | | Procedural speed | Fixed, immutable deadlines for evaluators guarantee timely resolution | | Transparency | All cases, votes and individual evaluator justifications are publicly visible on the platform | If either party believes the initial ruling was wrong, they can start an appeal and a larger panel reviews the case. Organizations using Kleros can show that their dispute resolution process meets fundamental standards of fairness, transparency and independence. For the legal basis of these guarantees, see [Legal Framework](/enterprise/legal). This documentation is built and hosted on [Mintlify](https://mintlify.com), a developer documentation platform.