Adjudication is the step where a designated person, a senior reviewer, a subject matter expert, or a policy specialist, makes the final call when two people disagree about a decision. Someone actually weighs the disagreement against the guidelines, instead of a rule simply counting votes.

‍

‍Why it matters

Disagreement usually comes from a case the guidelines didn't anticipate or a rule that can be read two ways. Leaving it unresolved means the same item gets different outcomes depending on who handles it. Adjudication settles the case, and the reasoning behind the decision, written down, becomes guidance for the next similar one.

‍

‍How it typically works

The disputed item goes to the adjudicator along with the original decisions and the reviewers' notes. The adjudicator decides and records the reasoning. If the same kind of dispute keeps appearing, that's treated as a sign the guidelines need clarifying, not that more cases need adjudicating.

‍

‍Adjudication versus appeals

The two are easy to confuse. Adjudication resolves disagreement among reviewers inside the team, before or during the decision. An appeal starts when the person affected, a customer, a user, challenges a decision that's already been made and enforced. Both involve a second look, but they have different triggers, different owners, and a different effect on the person waiting for an answer.