# Compare Arbitrator Candidates Against Selection Criteria

> Ensures candidate evaluation applies conflict-screening guidance rigorously, surfaces availability and prejudgment concerns, and produces a weighted ranking with explicit threshold screening.

- Skill: `finchipaiorg/compare-arbitrator-candidates-against-selection-criteria` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/compare-arbitrator-candidates-against-selection-criteria`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/compare-arbitrator-candidates-against-selection-criteria/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/compare-arbitrator-candidates-against-selection-criteria

---


# Skill: Arbitrator Candidate Evaluation

## 1. Subject-matter triage
- Treat the task as a comparative advisory evaluation of proposed chair candidates, not a generic biography summary.
- Identify the governing selection matrix first: eligibility floors, weighted criteria, any mandatory exclusions, and any tie-breaker or preference rules.
- If the source materials include multiple candidates, multiple criteria, or multiple hearing dates, enumerate them explicitly before analysis and keep the comparison one candidate at a time.
- Separate three questions from the start: qualification, disqualification screening, and weighted ranking.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting
- Classifying disclosed relationships without applying the relevant lookback period, which misstates whether a relationship is still within the disclosure window.
- Treating a disclosed contact as dispositive without distinguishing automatic exclusion, disclosure-only, waiver-eligible, or no-action treatment.
- Not translating an availability conflict into hearing-by-hearing practical impact.
- Ignoring minimum floor requirements on individual criteria and improperly letting a high aggregate score override a shortfall.
- Failing to distinguish general expertise from a specific prior position that may create prejudgment concern.
- Omitting patterned outcome history where it is relevant corroborating context rather than a standalone disqualifier.
- Collapsing the whole comparison into narrative praise without a scored, criterion-by-criterion ranking.
- Stating conclusions without tying them to the governing selection rule or ethics standard that supports the inference.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply
- Apply the conflict framework used in the materials or, if none is specified, a standard arbitration disclosure analysis: identify relationships that require exclusion, disclosure with possible waiver, disclosure only, or no action.
- Apply the stated lookback period for recurring relationship types; if the relationship falls outside the window, assess whether it is still material enough to disclose.
- Apply any hard eligibility floors in the selection criteria as presumptive disqualifiers even when the weighted total is strong.
- Evaluate availability against the actual hearing calendar, including prep sessions and reserved hearing blocks, not just the headline hearing period.
- Treat prior publications, speeches, or public positions as prejudgment concerns only when they speak specifically to the disputed issue, not merely because they show subject-matter expertise.
- Treat outcome patterns as contextual evidence that may reinforce other concerns; do not convert pattern alone into automatic exclusion unless the governing standard says so.
- Cite the controlling standard, rule, statute, treaty article, ethics provision, or institutional guideline whenever a legal or procedural conclusion depends on it.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds
- Build a candidate-by-criterion matrix and score every candidate against every stated criterion.
- Before weighing totals, screen each candidate for:
  - mandatory exclusions,
  - disclosure obligations,
  - waiver-eligible conflicts,
  - material but non-disqualifying concerns,
  - any minimum floor shortfall.
- For each disclosed relationship, record:
  - the relationship type,
  - the applicable disclosure treatment,
  - the lookback assessment,
  - whether the item is still material outside the lookback,
  - the practical consequence for appointment suitability.
- For each availability issue, state:
  - the affected dates or blocks,
  - whether the conflict is partial or total,
  - whether it affects the chair role in practice,
  - whether scheduling mitigation is realistic.
- For each prior statement or publication, state:
  - the issue it addresses,
  - whether the issue is the same as the dispute issue,
  - whether the concern is expertise, prejudgment, or both,
  - the downstream effect on neutrality perception.
- For each criterion score, give a short rationale linked to the source materials and the applicable standard.
- If a candidate fails a floor requirement, mark the candidate as presumptively excluded from the ranking and explain whether any residual consideration remains for record purposes.
- Weight the final ranking according to the stated matrix; if weights are absent, infer a sensible hierarchy from the selection criteria and say so.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships
- Compare candidates against the same criteria in the same order so the reader can see differences cleanly.
- Preserve temporal sequence for conflicts and disclosures: older relationships, current relationships, and future scheduling commitments should not be blended.
- Distinguish chair-specific needs from general arbitrator competence; the chair role often places extra weight on case management, neutrality signaling, and schedule reliability.
- When one issue affects another, state the interaction explicitly: for example, a high score on expertise does not cure a scheduling miss or a floor shortfall.
- If the record contains multiple dispute issues, analyze publication or predisposition concerns issue-by-issue rather than as a single global assessment.

## 6. Output structure conventions
- Use a scored ranking memo format, not a narrative profile.
- Open with a short executive view identifying the leading candidate, any presumptive exclusions, and the key reasons.
- Include a comparison table with each candidate against each criterion, including the score and a brief rationale.
- Include a screening section that isolates disqualification issues, threshold failures, and disclosure concerns before the ranking discussion.
- Include a conflicts section that classifies each disclosed relationship and states the lookback result and disclosure consequence.
- Include an availability section that explains the practical effect on the scheduled hearing calendar.
- Include a ranking section that explains the weighting logic and why the selected order follows from the criteria.
- End with a Recommended Actions block that uses imperatives, identifies the responsible role, and ties each step to a timing anchor or milestone.
- Keep the memo self-contained and readable in plain text, even if it will later be placed into a DOCX file.
- Do not rely on tables alone for legal conclusions; every material conclusion should be stated in a sentence that cites the governing authority or selection rule by name.