Dispute policy
A recorded process for unresolved testing disagreements.
The process protects both sides by comparing the published job, assignment, submission history, and communication—not by relying on an unverified summary.
Issues covered
- Valid work alleged to have been rejected without a fair review.
- Testing evidence alleged to be incomplete, misleading, or inadequate.
- A job alleged to differ materially from its published requirements.
- Payment, deadline, abusive communication, or access problems tied to an assignment.
Before opening a dispute
When safe and practical, explain the issue in the assignment conversation and propose a specific resolution. A client should use a revision request for correctable omissions. A tester should respond with the relevant submission version and requirement.
Opening and responding
- Open the dispute from the relevant job, assignment, or submission and choose the closest dispute type.
- State the requested resolution and identify the exact requirement, evidence, message, deadline, or ledger event involved.
- The other party may respond and attach relevant evidence. Do not include unrelated personal data or duplicate confidential files.
- Continue to preserve the record. Deleting a message or local file does not guarantee removal of evidence already retained for the case.
Review
A moderator or administrator may request clarification, limit new transitions while the case is open, and compare the evidence with the requirements in effect when the assignment was accepted. Reviewers should disclose conflicts and must not resolve their own dispute.
Possible outcomes
- Approve, reject, or return work for a defined revision.
- Release, continue to hold, or reverse a reward through compensating ledger entries.
- Cancel an assignment or close a job when completion is no longer possible.
- Dismiss the case, record a warning, or refer separate conduct concerns to moderation.
Appeals
An appeal must identify a material factual error, process error, or evidence that could not reasonably have been supplied earlier. Repeating the original position without new grounds does not require a new outcome.