{"meta":{"key":"s_ne--pass-15","task":"S_NE","title":"SNE Nebraska ordinary consumer-debt arbitration, delegation, judicial gateway, and related waiver","parent_title":"Nebraska debt and debt relief law","edition":"pass-15","path":"/research/s_ne--pass-15/","kind":"split_pass","category":"state","role":"state","area_numbers":[66],"groups":["collections"],"date":"2026-10-26","tables":8,"claims":62,"sources":30,"review_status":"revise","review_complete":true,"sha256":"cea918eb61b9428a1da3d342f53631506785d8b775ef656ae6e9a5f1296e14ed","headings":["Executive determination","B1. Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act","B2. Nebraska’s special arbitration warning","B3. Federal Arbitration Act","B4. Choice of law","D1. Written does not necessarily mean wet ink","D2. Incorporation by reference","D3. Institutional rules as delegation","D4. Assignment and debt buyers","D5. Servicers and agents","D6. Nonsignatory doctrines","D7. Conflicting agreements","E1. Application and service","E2. Pending action","E3. Stay","E4. Summary determination of formation","E5. Merits not decided at gateway","E6. Arbitrator appointment and limited procedural rights","F1. Independent federal jurisdiction","F2. Federal stay","F3. Federal appeal","H1. Generally applicable defenses","H2. Separability and specificity","H3. Unconscionability and consumer costs","H4. Statutory rights and CROA","H5. Class arbitration versus class-action waiver","H6. Jury waiver","I1. Arbitration is not self-executing","I2. Litigation-conduct waiver","I3. Claim-by-claim waiver","I4. Participation in arbitration","I5. Private-rule waiver","I6. Nonpayment","J1. AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules","J2. JAMS","K1. Nebraska","K2. Federal","Example 1 — Contested formation","Example 2 — Debt buyer with account-link gap","Example 3 — Complete assignment and operative clause","Example 4 — Specific delegation challenge versus whole-contract challenge","Specific delegation challenge","Whole-contract challenge","Example 5 — Pending Nebraska lawsuit, compel motion, no stay yet","Example 6 — County-court debt suit","Example 7 — Rules incorporated, version uncertain","Example 8 — Conflicting contracts","Example 9 — Litigation-conduct waiver","Example 10 — Early preservation rather than waiver","Example 11 — Participation in arbitration without objection","Preserved branch","Example 12 — Current JAMS consumer-cost policy","Example 13 — Administrator nonpayment","Example 14 — CROA statutory-remedy claim","Example 15 — Small-claims carveout","Example 16 — Class arbitration ambiguity","Freshly read in PASS-15","Explicit bounded reuse","Bounded negative or unresolved searches","Currentness and status"],"generation_provenance":{"actual_route":"regular_chat_adaptive_models","actual_model":"GPT-5.6 Sol","actual_mode":"Pro","provenance_limit":"Actual documented capture labels only; missing labels remain unknown. No preferred setting is inferred as actual execution."},"public_id":"S_NE/pass-15","facets":{"geography":["us","us-ne"],"debt_type":[],"stage":[],"subject":["arbitration-adr"]},"scope":"Ordinary Nebraska arbitration/delegation/gateway/courtstay/waiver and necessary statutory-preemption component","pending_corrections":5},"markdown":"# S_NE PASS-15 — Nebraska ordinary consumer-debt arbitration, delegation, judicial gateway, and related waiver\n\n**Actual fresh research date:** October 26, 2026, Pacific time / October 26, 2026 UTC\n**Mode/model:** Regular Chat; GPT-5.6 Sol Pro\n**Review status:** Same-coordinator continuation, **not independent review**.\n\nThis pass is limited to arbitration formation, assignment, nonsignatory enforcement, scope, delegation, judicial gateway questions, motions to compel or stay, litigation-conduct waiver, participation waiver, administrator rules, fee-administration boundaries, and the limited appeal consequences necessary to understand those issues.\n\nPASS-07 through PASS-12 and PASS-14 remain saved but unreviewed. PASS-13 is a separately reviewed, bounded electronic-law correction with continuing limits. No unreviewed conclusion about standing, service, limitations, provider remedies, consumer reporting, or debt validation is adopted here without fresh supporting authority.\n\nAward confirmation, award vacatur or modification, postaward judgment enforcement, garnishment, full appellate procedure, class certification, complete arbitration discovery, substantive fee and interest legality, secured claims, and local or tribal law remain separate required work.\n\n## Executive determination\n\nNebraska does not compel arbitration merely because a creditor, collector, servicer, debt buyer, or debt-relief provider produces a document containing an arbitration paragraph. The threshold sequence is:\n\nPlain text\n```\n1. Is there a written arbitration agreement?\n2. Did the person against whom it is asserted actually assent?\n3. Is the movant a party, assignee, authorized agent, or qualifying nonsignatory?\n4. Which contract and clause govern?\n5. Does the transaction invoke the FAA, Nebraska UAA, or a narrow statutory exception?\n6. Is there a valid, clear, and unmistakable delegation of gateway questions?\n7. Does the particular claim fall within the clause?\n8. Has the right to arbitrate been waived, forfeited, or preserved?\n9. Has a court entered the necessary compel/stay order?\n```\n\nThe **court always performs the first formation step**—whether any arbitration agreement was made. A delegation clause cannot bootstrap itself into existence. Only after the court finds a valid arbitration agreement may a clear and unmistakable delegation send questions of scope, interpretation, enforceability, or arbitrability to the arbitrator. Conflicting contracts, disputed signatures, missing assent, disputed account linkage, and whether an assignee or nonsignatory is bound are therefore judicial gateway issues unless and until a valid antecedent agreement is established. *Cullinane* and the U.S. Supreme Court’s later *Coinbase* decision both preserve that sequence. [Nebraska.gov+2](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB)\n\nThe governing arbitration statute depends on the transaction:\n\n- Nebraska’s Uniform Arbitration Act generally governs a written Nebraska arbitration agreement not controlled by federal law.\n- The Federal Arbitration Act governs a written arbitration provision in a maritime transaction or a contract evidencing interstate commerce.\n- The FAA’s reach is broad, but it is not automatic. In *Garlock*, the Nebraska Supreme Court treated a simple Nebraska residential real-estate sale as intrastate despite incidental interstate facts.\n- Narrow exclusions must remain narrow: Nebraska’s UAA excludes specified workers’ compensation, tort-personal-injury, employment-discrimination, motor-vehicle-industry, and insurance matters; FAA §1 excludes certain transportation-worker employment contracts; and the Ending Forced Arbitration Act creates an alleging-party election for qualifying sexual-assault or sexual-harassment disputes. None is a general ordinary consumer-debt exception. [Nebraska Legislature+4](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.01)\n\nNebraska’s special notice statute requires a capitalized and underlined arbitration warning adjoining the signature block of a standardized agreement in which arbitration is the sole dispute remedy. That rule remains operative under Nebraska law. But *Aramark* holds that the FAA preempts the Nebraska arbitration-specific notice requirement when the contract involves interstate commerce. Generally applicable defenses—fraud, duress, lack of assent, unconscionability, illegality, incapacity, mistake, or lack of authority—remain available; arbitration-specific obstacles cannot be used to disfavor an FAA-covered clause. [Nebraska Legislature+3](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.02)\n\nAn assignee or debt buyer does not acquire arbitration rights merely by calling itself the account owner. It must establish that:\n\n1. the consumer agreed to an arbitration clause;\n2. the clause was part of the contract or rights transferred;\n3. the particular account was within the assignment;\n4. the clause survived the transfer and covers the claim; and\n5. the assignee has not waived enforcement.\n\nA servicer, affiliate, agent, trustee, or other nonsignatory must fit a recognized contract or agency theory. Nebraska’s 2026 *EAD Engineering* decision identifies six possible nonsignatory theories—incorporation by reference, assumption, agency, alter ego, equitable estoppel, and third-party beneficiary—but none applies merely because entities are affiliated or one services another’s accounts. [Nebraska.gov+2](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB)\n\nA pending court case does not stop merely because one side mails an arbitration demand, files with AAA or JAMS, raises arbitration in a letter, or begins settlement discussions. In Nebraska state court, an application under the UAA is made by motion; an initial independent application is served like a summons; the statutory “court” is a Nebraska district court; and §25-2603 supplies the compel, summary-formation, and stay procedure. In federal court, FAA §§3 and 4 control, but §4 does not itself create federal subject-matter jurisdiction. A motion to compel is not one of Nebraska Rule §6-1112’s motions that automatically extends the answer deadline. A court stay, stipulated extension, or other valid order is necessary to change the ordinary response obligation. [Nebraska Legislature+5](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2603)\n\nArbitration is contractual and is not self-executing. A court ordinarily should not force arbitration sua sponte where no party invokes it. A party can lose the right through litigation conduct inconsistent with arbitration; after *Morgan* and Nebraska’s *Kingery* decision, prejudice is not a required extra element. Litigation-conduct waiver is ordinarily decided by the court and can be claim-specific. Separately, a party that voluntarily participates in arbitration on the merits without a timely and explicit arbitrability objection risks waiving a later judicial objection. [Nebraska.gov+4](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010454PUB)\n\nPrivate AAA and JAMS rules matter only after the applicable contract and incorporation are proved. Their statements assigning formation or jurisdiction to an arbitrator do not independently displace the court’s formation role. Their current fee, nonpayment, rule-waiver, small-claims, and judicial-intervention provisions are private administrative rules—not Nebraska statutes or adjudications of enforceability. [American Arbitration Association+6](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf)\n\n# A. Actor-by-arbitration matrix\n\n| Actor or model | What must be established before arbitration can be compelled | Who decides the threshold issue | Principal unresolved facts |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **Original creditor suing on its own consumer contract** | Contract formation; consumer assent; operative version of terms; written arbitration provision; FAA or UAA applicability; claim scope; no waiver | Court first decides formation and governing contract; arbitrator may decide delegated scope or enforceability after valid delegation | Application, card activation or use, electronic assent, amendments, opt-out history, governing clause, account identity |\n| **Debt buyer or absolute assignee** | All original-creditor predicates plus a legally sufficient assignment linking the account and transferring the contractual arbitration right | Court decides whether the consumer contract existed and whether movant is entitled to invoke it | Bill of sale, account schedule, intermediate transfers, clause survival, account linkage, buyer’s litigation conduct |\n| **Assignee for collection** | Written or otherwise legally effective authority plus proof that arbitration right was included and can be invoked in assignee’s name | Court | Collection assignment, identity of owner, precise enforcement authority |\n| **Servicer suing or moving in its own name** | Independent real-party or agency basis; contract or assignment authorizing enforcement; account linkage; clause scope | Court | Servicing agreement, power of attorney, owner identity, agency scope |\n| **Servicer acting for named owner** | Owner’s contract and assent plus servicer’s authority to act for owner | Court decides formation and agency; delegated scope can follow | Actual owner, agency records, whether clause permits enforcement by agents or affiliates |\n| **Affiliate or corporate parent** | A recognized nonsignatory theory—agency, alter ego, estoppel, third-party beneficiary, assumption, or incorporation | Court initially determines whether the nonsignatory can invoke the agreement | Corporate relationship alone is insufficient; conduct and contract language required |\n| **Trustee or securitization trust** | Trust or transfer documents, account linkage, current entitlement, and inclusion of arbitration rights | Court | Pooling documents, schedules, trustee authority, servicer delegation |\n| **Consumer seeking to compel creditor or collector** | Same formation, assignment, and scope proof; arbitration clauses are generally reciprocal only as their text and applicable law provide | Court | Clause wording, exclusions, small-claims carveout, forum rules |\n| **Debt-relief provider asserting arbitration against consumer** | Actual provider entity, consumer assent, applicable agreement, scope, electronic-delivery validity, state/federal coverage, and no statutory prohibition | Court first; valid delegation can transfer later gateway issues | Actual contract, entity, Nebraska authorization, CROA or TSR predicates, consent and delivery records |\n| **Consumer asserting CROA claims against covered provider** | CROA coverage and a valid arbitration agreement | Court first decides formation; *CompuCredit* holds CROA does not categorically prohibit arbitration | Provider status, representations, exemptions, clause remedy limitations |\n| **Nonsignatory consumer or household member** | One of the recognized nonsignatory doctrines plus direct evidence of intent or legally sufficient conduct | Court | Benefit, reliance, agency, assumption, third-party-beneficiary wording |\n| **Party to a later contract conflicting with an earlier arbitration clause** | Which contract governs the dispute | Court, even if the earlier contract delegates arbitrability | Contract sequence, integration or supersession language, claim relationship |\n| **Transportation worker employment agreement** | FAA §1 classification before FAA compulsion | Court under *New Prime* | Occupation and interstate-commerce duties; not an ordinary consumer-debt exception |\n| **Qualifying sexual-assault or harassment dispute** | Chapter 4 applicability and alleging-party election | Court notwithstanding delegation | Dispute accrual, allegations, agreement timing; outside ordinary debt |\n| **Insurance-policy dispute** | Nebraska UAA insurance exclusion and federal preemption or reverse-preemption rules | Court | Actual policy relationship; ordinary debt does not inherit this exception |\n\nThe Nebraska nonsignatory analysis is contract- and conduct-specific. *EAD Engineering* rejected contractual assent on the facts before it because the nonsignatory had not executed the later arbitration agreement, while remanding unresolved agency issues; *Noah’s Ark* enforced arbitration through equitable estoppel only after detailed findings of concealment, continued performance, reliance, and detriment. [Nebraska.gov+2](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB)\n\n# B. State and federal arbitration framework\n\n## B1. Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act\n\nNebraska §25-2602.01 distinguishes existing and future disputes:\n\n- A written postdispute agreement is enforceable subject to ordinary contract-revocation grounds.\n- A written predispute clause is enforceable subject to ordinary contract defenses **if entered voluntarily and willingly**.\n- Contract provisions can ordinarily control over contrary UAA provisions except the exclusions in subsections (e) and (f).\n- The exclusions include workers’ compensation, future tort personal-injury claims, Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act claims, Motor Vehicle Industry Regulation Act agreements, and—subject to specific exceptions—agreements concerning insurance policies. [Nebraska Legislature+1](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.01)\n\nThe “voluntarily and willingly” language is an express Nebraska UAA condition. Where the FAA applies, the federal equal-treatment principle limits enforcement of state requirements that single out arbitration. *Aramark* directly resolves §25-2602.02’s special warning but does not supply a complete, claim-independent answer about every application of §25-2602.01(b). The exact relationship between that language, ordinary Nebraska assent law, and FAA preemption remains fact- and argument-dependent. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00000319PUB)\n\nNebraska’s UAA applies only to agreements made after August 30, 1987. Its hearing provisions permit contractual variation, but absent a different agreement require at least ten days’ personal or registered/certified-mail hearing notice, preserve the right to counsel, authorize arbitral subpoenas enforceable through court, and require a signed written award delivered as the agreement or statute provides. Full award review is outside this pass. [Nebraska Legislature+4](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2606)\n\n## B2. Nebraska’s special arbitration warning\n\nFor a standardized agreement in which binding arbitration is the sole dispute remedy, §25-2602.02 requires the following warning in capitalized, underlined type adjoining the signature block:\n\nTHIS CONTRACT CONTAINS AN ARBITRATION PROVISION WHICH MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE PARTIES.\n\nUnder Nebraska law alone, strict compliance matters. When the FAA governs, *Aramark* holds the arbitration-specific warning requirement preempted. Generally applicable disclosure, formation, fraud, duress, or unconscionability rules remain available. [Nebraska Legislature+3](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.02)\n\n## B3. Federal Arbitration Act\n\nFAA §2 makes a written arbitration provision in a maritime transaction or a contract evidencing interstate commerce valid and enforceable, subject to generally applicable grounds for revoking any contract. FAA “commerce” is broad, but *Garlock* confirms that the actual transaction must still involve commerce; a purely intrastate transaction is not transformed into FAA commerce by incidental internet use, out-of-state appliances, or generalized commercial activity. [U.S. Code+2](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s1/)\n\nFAA §1 excludes contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, and other transportation workers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce. Under *New Prime*, the court—not the arbitrator—must decide this antecedent statutory exclusion before invoking the FAA, even where the contract purports to delegate gateway questions. The exclusion is narrow and does not apply to an ordinary consumer credit or debt-relief contract merely because payments or communications crossed state lines. [U.S. Code+1](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s1/)\n\nThe Ending Forced Arbitration Act allows the person alleging a sexual-assault or sexual-harassment dispute to elect to invalidate a predispute arbitration agreement or joint-action waiver for a dispute arising or accruing on or after March 3, 2022. Section 402 expressly assigns its applicability to a court despite any delegation clause. It is not an ordinary consumer-debt exception. [U.S. Code+1](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s401/)\n\n## B4. Choice of law\n\nNebraska generally follows Restatement choice-of-law principles. A contractual choice is ordinarily honored when it has a substantial relationship or another reasonable basis and does not violate the fundamental policy of a state with a materially greater interest that otherwise would govern. A clause selecting Nebraska or another state’s law is therefore relevant to contract formation and defenses, but it does not automatically establish that the FAA is inapplicable or that every selected-state procedural rule controls. Exact wording—especially whether the clause selects substantive law, arbitration law, or a complete state-law regime—matters. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00003683PUB)\n\n# C. Judicial gateway and decisionmaker matrix\n\n| Issue | Default decisionmaker | What is required to move it to the arbitrator | Authority and limitation |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **Was any arbitration agreement formed?** | Court | It cannot be delegated before a valid arbitration agreement is found | *Cullinane* requires the court to perform formation analysis “as it always does”; *Coinbase* preserves court resolution of which contract governs. [Nebraska.gov+2](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB) |\n| **Was the electronic or written assent attributable to the consumer?** | Court | Proof of actual agreement and attribution first | Nebraska UETA recognizes electronic records but requires agreement to transact electronically and attribution to the person. [Nebraska Legislature+2](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-632) |\n| **Which of two conflicting contracts controls?** | Court | A valid contract must first establish that this issue itself was delegated | *Coinbase* held the court decides whether an earlier delegation clause or later court-forum clause governs. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf) |\n| **Is an assignee or debt buyer entitled to invoke the clause?** | Court | Assignment, account linkage, transfer of arbitration right, and assent must be shown | Assignment does not create consumer assent or account linkage by itself. *EAD* treats assignee and nonsignatory questions as contract issues. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB) |\n| **Is a nonsignatory bound?** | Court | Recognized doctrine supported by facts | Six theories recognized in *EAD*; *Noah’s Ark* shows estoppel’s fact-intensive nature. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB) |\n| **Does the FAA apply?** | Court | Proof that the contract evidences interstate commerce and no statutory exclusion applies | *Garlock*, *Aramark*, *New Prime*. [Nebraska.gov+2](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00000319PUB) |\n| **Does an FAA §1 or EFAA exception apply?** | Court | No delegation overrides these antecedent statutory assignments | *New Prime*; 9 U.S.C. §402. [Supreme Court+1](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-340_o7kq.pdf) |\n| **Does the claim fall within an admitted clause?** | Court by default | Clear and unmistakable delegation | *Cullinane*; *Heard* kept a statutory disclosure claim outside a purchase-agreement clause on the clause’s language. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB) |\n| **Is the arbitration clause enforceable?** | Court by default | Valid clear delegation, unless challenge targets formation or delegation itself | *Cullinane* and *Citizens*. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB) |\n| **Is the delegation clause itself valid?** | Court when specifically challenged | A whole-contract challenge is not enough; the objection must be directed to delegation | *Citizens* and the separability doctrine. [Nebraska.gov](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010566PUB) |\n| **Is the contract as a whole illegal, fraudulent, or voidable?** | Arbitrator after valid formation and delegation | Valid formation and valid delegation must first be established | Whole-contract validity differs from formation and clause-specific challenges. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010566PUB) |\n| **Is the arbitration argument “wholly groundless”?** | Arbitrator after valid delegation | Valid formation and clear delegation | *Henry Schein* rejects a judicial wholly-groundless exception. [Supreme Court+1](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf) |\n| **Has litigation conduct waived arbitration?** | Court ordinarily | No delegation was identified as displacing this ordinary judicial function in the controlling Nebraska cases | *Kingery* preserves court determination and removes prejudice requirement. [Nebraska.gov](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008874PUB) |\n| **Was an objection to the arbitral process waived inside arbitration?** | Arbitrator or reviewing court depending the issue | Timely written or explicit objection under applicable rules and law | *Garlock*, AAA R-39, JAMS Rule 27. [Nebraska.gov+2](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00011615PUB) |\n| **Did administrative nonpayment terminate the case?** | Administrator initially; court may later decide contractual consequences | Actual contract, private rules, notices, fault, and applicable law | AAA and JAMS may suspend or terminate; no universal Nebraska consequence was established. [American Arbitration Association+2](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf) |\n\n# D. Formation, assent, incorporation, assignment, and nonsignatories\n\n## D1. Written does not necessarily mean wet ink\n\nNebraska’s UAA requires a written arbitration agreement. Nebraska UETA provides that an electronic record can satisfy a writing requirement and an electronic signature can satisfy a signature requirement, but only where the parties agreed to transact electronically and the act is attributable to the person. A click, typed name, card use, or portal log may be evidence; none is conclusive without the surrounding process, notice, account identity, and attribution. [Nebraska Legislature+2](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-632)\n\nThe formation record can include:\n\nPlain text\n```\nthe actual agreement displayed\nthe clause and its formatting\ndate and version\nmethod of notice\nconsumer’s affirmative act\naccount or device authentication\nretention or delivery of the record\nopt-out procedure and history\nlater amendments and change notices\nevidence linking the agreement to the account\n```\n\nNo universal Nebraska wet-ink or notarization rule was verified for ordinary consumer-debt arbitration.\n\n## D2. Incorporation by reference\n\nNebraska permits incorporation by reference where the incorporating contract clearly and unambiguously identifies the other document and manifests intent to include it. *Frohberg* enforced incorporated dispute provisions in a particular construction contract after examining the actual documents. It does not establish that a vague hyperlink, website reference, or unidentified “rules of the forum” automatically incorporates changing rules into every consumer agreement. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010299PUB)\n\nThe necessary questions are:\n\n- What exact rules or document were identified?\n- Were they reasonably available when assent occurred?\n- Did the contract select the then-current rules or future amendments?\n- Was the referenced source stable and identifiable?\n- Did the consumer assent to that incorporated material?\n- Does a later rule conflict with the contract or law?\n\n## D3. Institutional rules as delegation\n\nThe Eighth Circuit’s *Fallo* decision held that incorporation of AAA rules was clear and unmistakable delegation in the specific contract before it. The case applied Missouri contract law and involved a specific incorporation; it should not be converted into a rule that every reference to AAA, JAMS, or “arbitration rules” proves Nebraska consumer assent or delegates formation. [U.S. Court of Appeals](https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/09/03/082437P.pdf)\n\nCurrent AAA Consumer Rule R-7 and JAMS Comprehensive Rule 11 give the arbitrator broad authority over jurisdiction and arbitrability, including language concerning existence or formation. Those private rules matter only after the court finds a valid contract incorporating them. Private rule text cannot supply the missing contract that would authorize its own use. [American Arbitration Association+1](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf)\n\n## D4. Assignment and debt buyers\n\nAn assignee generally stands in the assignor’s shoes and can receive contractual arbitration rights, but only rights actually transferred and tied to the account. *EAD Engineering* emphasizes that assignment transfers identifiable property, claims, or rights and binds the assignee to assigned contract terms to the same extent as the assignor. It does not relieve the assignee of proving:\n\n- the original agreement;\n- consumer assent;\n- the operative clause;\n- the assignment chain;\n- account linkage;\n- clause survival;\n- and claim scope. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB)\n\nA generic bill of sale saying “all accounts in a separate file” does not, standing alone, establish that the account in suit carried an arbitration agreement. The missing account schedule or a reliable alternative linkage remains a formation and entitlement gap.\n\n## D5. Servicers and agents\n\nA servicer can potentially invoke a clause as the owner’s agent if actual agency authority and the contract’s scope support it. A servicing label, payment address, or account access does not independently establish power to compel arbitration. The court must determine:\n\n- the principal;\n- the servicing agreement;\n- the authority granted;\n- whether litigation and arbitration enforcement are included;\n- and whether the consumer clause reaches agents or servicers.\n\n## D6. Nonsignatory doctrines\n\nNebraska’s six identified nonsignatory theories are:\n\n1. incorporation by reference;\n2. assumption;\n3. agency;\n4. alter ego;\n5. equitable estoppel; and\n6. third-party beneficiary.\n\nEach requires its own elements. *Noah’s Ark* illustrates equitable estoppel based on extensive conduct—concealment of the new operating entity, continuation of the same contacts and services, reliance, and detriment. Common ownership, receipt of an incidental benefit, or mere affiliation is not equivalent. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB)\n\n## D7. Conflicting agreements\n\nWhen an earlier agreement contains arbitration and delegation but a later agreement concerning the specific transaction selects court, the court decides which contract governs. *Coinbase* rejected the argument that the earlier delegation clause necessarily sends that contract-conflict issue to an arbitrator. The first inquiry remains what the parties agreed to for the dispute at hand. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf)\n\n# E. Nebraska state-court compel and stay procedure\n\n## E1. Application and service\n\nAn application under Nebraska’s UAA is made by motion. Unless the parties agreed otherwise, notice of an **initial** application for an order must be served in the same manner as a summons. Nebraska defines “court” for the UAA as a Nebraska district court. [Nebraska Legislature+1](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2617)\n\nThe application ordinarily must show:\n\nPlain text\n```\na written agreement described by §25-2602.01\nthe movant’s right to invoke it\nthe opposing party’s refusal to arbitrate\nthe particular claim or issue asserted to be arbitrable\nthe relief requested—compulsion, stay, or both\n```\n\nIf the opposing party denies the agreement’s existence, the court summarily determines that issue. The court may also stay a threatened or commenced arbitration when no agreement exists, with a summary trial where the issue is substantial and bona fide. [Nebraska Legislature+1](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2603)\n\n## E2. Pending action\n\nIf an arbitrable issue is involved in an action pending in a court that has jurisdiction to hear a §25-2603 application, the application must be made there. Otherwise, the statutory district-court and venue rules apply. An independent initial application goes to:\n\n- the district court in the county specified for the arbitration hearing;\n- if no such controlling location, the county where the adverse party resides or has a place of business; or\n- if the adverse party has neither in Nebraska, a district court in any county.\n\nSubsequent applications ordinarily remain with that court. [Nebraska Legislature+2](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2603)\n\nBecause §25-2618 defines the UAA “court” as district court, the exact state procedural sequence for an ordinary collection case already pending in **county court** is unresolved in this pass. A separate district-court UAA application and a county-court stay request may be required, but no controlling public Nebraska opinion was located resolving that exact configuration. It should not be assumed that the county court can exercise every UAA power merely because it has jurisdiction over the debt claim.\n\n## E3. Stay\n\nSection 25-2603(d) states that an action involving an arbitrable issue shall be stayed when an arbitration order or qualifying application has been made under that section; a severable issue may be stayed alone. An order compelling arbitration in the same action must include the stay. [Nebraska Legislature](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2603)\n\nThe statutory trigger is not:\n\n- a demand letter to opposing counsel;\n- a consumer complaint;\n- an FDCPA validation request;\n- filing an AAA or JAMS demand without a court application;\n- settlement discussions;\n- or a statement that arbitration “will be requested.”\n\nA private arbitration demand can preserve rights under a contract or administrator rule, but it does not itself create a judicial stay.\n\n## E4. Summary determination of formation\n\nNebraska’s §25-2603 summary procedure can be used in a state case even where the FAA supplies the substantive enforceability rule. *Cullinane* holds that the FAA does not require state courts to use FAA §4’s federal procedural machinery and that Nebraska’s summary procedure does not defeat the FAA’s objective. Depending on genuine factual disputes and preservation, a jury issue may remain possible; Nebraska’s statute does not categorically eliminate a jury in every formation dispute. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB)\n\n## E5. Merits not decided at gateway\n\nA court cannot deny arbitration merely because it believes the underlying claim lacks merit, good faith, or supporting fault. The gateway asks whether the parties agreed to arbitrate and whether the claim falls within the enforceable agreement—not whether the creditor, consumer, or provider will win. [Nebraska Legislature](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2603)\n\n## E6. Arbitrator appointment and limited procedural rights\n\nIf the agreed arbitrator-selection method fails, a Nebraska district court can appoint an odd number of arbitrators. Under the UAA, a party retains a nonwaivable advance right to counsel at the proceeding, and arbitrators may issue subpoenas enforceable through court. [Nebraska Legislature+2](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2604)\n\n# F. Federal-court procedure and state/federal distinction\n\n## F1. Independent federal jurisdiction\n\nFAA §4 authorizes a petition to a federal district court only where the federal court would independently have subject-matter jurisdiction absent the arbitration agreement. The FAA does not itself create federal-question jurisdiction. The petitioner must provide the statutory written notice, and service follows federal civil-process rules. If formation or refusal is genuinely in issue, §4 provides a summary trial and contains a jury-demand mechanism. [U.S. Code](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/)\n\nThis federal §4 procedure should not be imported wholesale into Nebraska state court. *Cullinane* expressly treats §4 as procedural and permits Nebraska’s state summary mechanism while applying FAA substantive law. [Nebraska.gov](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB)\n\n## F2. Federal stay\n\nFAA §3 requires a federal court, on a party’s application, to stay a suit involving an arbitrable issue when the court is satisfied the issue is referable to arbitration and the applicant is not in default in proceeding with arbitration. [U.S. Code](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s3/)\n\nIn *Smith v. Spizzirri*, the Supreme Court held that when a party requests a §3 stay and all claims are sent to arbitration, the federal court cannot dismiss the action merely because every claim is arbitrable. A separate dismissal ground—such as lack of subject-matter jurisdiction—remains distinct. [Supreme Court+1](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf)\n\n## F3. Federal appeal\n\nFAA §16 generally permits an immediate appeal from:\n\n- denial of a §3 stay;\n- denial of a §4 petition to compel; and\n- specified other anti-arbitration or final orders.\n\nIt generally bars immediate appeal from an interlocutory order granting a stay or compelling arbitration, while a final decision can be appealable. Full appellate consequences remain outside this pass. [U.S. Code](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s16/)\n\n# G. Court response obligations while arbitration is disputed\n\nNebraska Rule §6-1112 ordinarily requires an answer within 30 days after service. Only a motion listed in that rule automatically changes the answer deadline. A motion to compel arbitration is not one of the listed Rule 12 motions. “Arbitration and award” and “waiver” are affirmative defenses under §6-1108. [Nebraska Judicial Branch+1](https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases-effective-january-1-2025/%C2%A7-6-1112-defenses-and-objections-when-and-how-presented-pleading-or-motion-motion-judgment-pleadings)\n\nAccordingly:\n\nPlain text\n```\nArbitration demand to opposing party        no automatic extension\nAAA or JAMS filing                           no automatic court extension\nMotion to compel arbitration                 no automatic Rule 12 extension\nSettlement discussion                        no automatic extension\nConsumer administrative complaint            no automatic extension\nFDCPA or credit-report dispute               no automatic extension\n\nCourt-issued stay or extension               can alter obligations\nValid stipulation accepted under court rules can alter obligations\nQualifying Rule 12 motion                    alters answer period as rule states\n```\n\nA Nebraska court can extend a rule-based deadline for good cause before expiration or for excusable neglect after expiration. A statutory deadline cannot be extended unless the statute authorizes it. [Nebraska Judicial Branch](https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases/%C2%A7-6-1106-time)\n\nThe prudent procedural conclusion is bounded: **the arbitration issue must be preserved in the court case while the party seeks the proper stay or compel order**. This is not a recommendation for any named litigant or a sample pleading.\n\n# H. Defenses, nonwaiver, statutory remedies, and class or jury issues\n\n## H1. Generally applicable defenses\n\nBoth the UAA and FAA preserve defenses that apply to contracts generally. Depending on actual facts, these can include:\n\n- no assent;\n- lack of authority;\n- fraud in execution;\n- clause-specific fraud;\n- duress;\n- unconscionability;\n- incapacity;\n- mistake;\n- illegality;\n- failure of consideration;\n- material nondisclosure;\n- lack of notice;\n- or failure to incorporate terms.\n\nAn arbitration clause cannot be invalidated under the FAA merely because it is an arbitration clause or because it lacks an arbitration-only warning. [U.S. Code+1](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s2/)\n\n## H2. Separability and specificity\n\nA delegation clause is treated as a separate antecedent agreement. Therefore:\n\n- A formation challenge—“I never agreed to any contract or arbitration clause”—is for the court.\n- A challenge specifically directed to delegation—“the delegation clause itself is unconscionable because it imposes a particular fee or one-sided procedure”—is for the court.\n- A challenge only to the contract as a whole—“the provider’s services were illegal”—may go to the arbitrator after valid formation and delegation are found.\n- A general statement that “the entire arbitration section is unfair” may be insufficient if it does not identify the delegation defect. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB)\n\nLicensing defects, disputed fees, missing account records, or alleged wrongdoing do not automatically invalidate delegation. Their legal relevance depends on whether they bear on formation, the arbitration clause, delegation specifically, or only the merits.\n\n## H3. Unconscionability and consumer costs\n\nA consumer-cost provision can be relevant to unconscionability or effective-vindication arguments, but no universal Nebraska rule was verified that any specified filing fee invalidates a clause. The actual agreement, applicable administrator rules, consumer status, hardship process, statutory remedies, and allocation of arbitrator compensation must be read together.\n\nCurrent JAMS Consumer Minimum Standard 7 says that, for an arbitration administered under a mandatory predispute consumer clause:\n\n- when the consumer initiates, the consumer’s required fee is $250 and the company bears the remaining JAMS and arbitrator costs;\n- when the company initiates, the company pays all arbitration costs.\n\nThat is JAMS’s current private administrative standard, not a Nebraska statutory cap and not proof that JAMS will administer a particular clause. [JAMS](https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards)\n\nThe current AAA consumer fee schedule is maintained separately on AAA’s official forms-and-fees page. This pass did not assign a numerical AAA fee because the amount can depend on the current schedule, claim, filing posture, and clause. [American Arbitration Association+1](https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/)\n\n## H4. Statutory rights and CROA\n\nIn *CompuCredit v. Greenwood*, the Supreme Court held that CROA does not contain a congressional command categorically barring arbitration. Its references to a “right to sue” and nonwaiver do not necessarily mean a judicial forum rather than arbitration. The decision does not hold that an arbitration clause may erase CROA damages, cancellation rights, attorney-fee provisions, or other nonwaivable remedies. Actual CROA coverage remains a separate predicate. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/565bv.pdf)\n\nThus:\n\nPlain text\n```\nArbitrating a statutory claim\n    ≠ waiving the substantive statute\n\nValid forum-selection agreement\n    ≠ permission to eliminate statutory remedies\n\nCompuCredit holding\n    ≠ approval of every provider arbitration clause\n```\n\n## H5. Class arbitration versus class-action waiver\n\n*Lamps Plus* holds that ambiguity is not enough to authorize **class arbitration**; there must be an affirmative contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to it. This is distinct from the validity of a contractual class-action waiver. The validity and scope of any waiver still depend on the contract, governing law, statutory rights, and applicable federal doctrine. [Supreme Court+1](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf)\n\nThe Ending Forced Arbitration Act separately permits an alleging party to invalidate a predispute joint-action waiver for qualifying sexual-assault or harassment disputes. That exception should not be generalized to ordinary debt. [U.S. Code](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s402/)\n\n## H6. Jury waiver\n\nA valid arbitration clause removes arbitrable merits from a judicial jury, but it does not necessarily eliminate every jury issue concerning formation. FAA §4 expressly provides a jury route for a genuine formation or refusal dispute when properly demanded. Nebraska’s §25-2603 summary procedure likewise does not categorically foreclose a jury in every case, although the precise state procedure and preservation requirements are fact-sensitive. [U.S. Code+1](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/)\n\n# I. Waiver, forfeiture, delay, and participation\n\n## I1. Arbitration is not self-executing\n\n*Boyd v. Cook* holds that arbitration is a contractual right to be invoked by a party; a court cannot enforce it sua sponte for parties that did not ask. Like other contract rights, it can be waived. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010454PUB)\n\nA contract containing arbitration therefore does not automatically:\n\n- deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction;\n- suspend a filed lawsuit;\n- excuse a missed response;\n- or transfer the dispute to an arbitral forum.\n\n*Heard* likewise treats a compel request as an application requiring a valid agreement and refusal, rather than a jurisdictional disappearance of the court case. [Nebraska.gov](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00011157PUB)\n\n## I2. Litigation-conduct waiver\n\nAfter *Morgan v. Sundance*, federal courts may not impose an arbitration-specific prejudice requirement. Nebraska’s *Kingery* expressly overruled prior Nebraska authority to the extent it required prejudice for litigation-conduct waiver, while preserving the rule that the court generally decides that waiver issue. [Supreme Court+1](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf)\n\nMaterial factors can include:\n\n- knowledge of the arbitration right;\n- filing suit rather than demanding arbitration;\n- seeking merits rulings;\n- substantial discovery;\n- delay;\n- using litigation mechanisms inconsistent with arbitration;\n- invoking arbitration only after an adverse development;\n- and whether the later claims are genuinely new.\n\nPrejudice may still be relevant as a factual circumstance under ordinary waiver principles, but it is not a required arbitration-specific element.\n\n## I3. Claim-by-claim waiver\n\nThe Eighth Circuit’s 2025 *Lackie Drug Store* decision treats waiver as potentially claim-specific. A party can waive arbitration of claims it litigated while retaining a right as to genuinely new claims in an amended pleading. Restating an old theory under a new label does not necessarily restore arbitration. The court examines the relationship between the earlier and later claims and the conduct directed at them. [U.S. Court of Appeals+1](https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/07/241231P.pdf)\n\n## I4. Participation in arbitration\n\nUnder *Garlock*:\n\n- voluntarily participating in arbitration on the merits without objection generally waives a later judicial arbitrability challenge;\n- a party that clearly and explicitly objects before the merits hearing can preserve a later challenge despite participating thereafter.\n\nThe exact objection, its timing, and whether it reaches formation, scope, or procedure matter. [Nebraska.gov](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00011615PUB)\n\n## I5. Private-rule waiver\n\nAAA R-39 and JAMS Rule 27 deem certain rule objections waived when a party proceeds after knowing of noncompliance and fails to object in writing or promptly. These provisions concern compliance with private procedural rules. They do not independently create a valid arbitration agreement or resolve constitutional and statutory formation objections. [American Arbitration Association+1](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf)\n\n## I6. Nonpayment\n\nAAA and JAMS both permit administrative consequences for nonpayment:\n\n- AAA may seek payment from another party, limit a nonpaying claimant’s affirmative participation, suspend or terminate administration, or decline cases under its current rules. A nonpaying respondent cannot be barred from defending, and an attending claimant must still produce evidence; an award cannot rest solely on default. [American Arbitration Association+1](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf)\n- JAMS may suspend or terminate the proceeding, allow another party to advance payment, and toll time limits contained in its private rules or the parties’ agreement during administrative suspension. JAMS expressly says its commencement date is not intended to determine legal limitations or claim-notice periods. [JAMS+2](https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration)\n\nNo controlling Nebraska or Eighth Circuit ordinary consumer-debt decision was located establishing that administrator nonpayment automatically:\n\n- waives arbitration;\n- authorizes immediate court judgment;\n- dismisses the underlying claim;\n- tolls a Nebraska statute of limitations;\n- or revives a stayed lawsuit.\n\nThose consequences remain contract- and law-dependent.\n\n# J. Administrator rules and public forms\n\n## J1. AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules\n\nThe current AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules are amended and effective May 1, 2025. Material provisions reviewed are:\n\n| Rule | Current private rule | Legal limitation |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| **R-1** | When a consumer agreement provides for AAA arbitration, the Consumer Rules generally apply; absent another agreed version, AAA applies the version in effect when filing requirements are met | Actual incorporation and assent remain judicial formation questions |\n| **R-2** | If a party seeks judicial intervention within 30 days after AAA commencement and supplies documentation, AAA administratively suspends for 90 days, subject to extension | Private administrative suspension—not a Nebraska court stay |\n| **R-4** | Demand, applicable agreement, and filing fee are needed to commence administration | Filing does not prove enforceability |\n| **R-5** | Response generally requested within 14 calendar days; no response is treated as disagreement, not admission | Does not alter a Nebraska court answer deadline |\n| **R-7** | Arbitrator claims authority over jurisdiction, existence, validity, and arbitrability | Court must first find a valid agreement incorporating the rule |\n| **R-9** | Small-claims option is available under the rule | Actual Nebraska Small Claims Court eligibility remains governed by Nebraska law, including any assignment restrictions |\n| **R-12** | AAA reviews and registers consumer clauses for administrative compliance | AAA says this is not a legal opinion on enforceability |\n| **R-39** | Written objection required to preserve known rule noncompliance | Private procedural waiver only |\n| **R-55/R-56** | Deposits and nonpayment remedies | No automatic merits default; defense cannot be precluded |\n| **R-58** | AAA appellate process only where agreement provides it and fee conditions are met | Not a judicial appeal and not automatic |\n\n## J2. JAMS\n\nThe JAMS Comprehensive Rules reviewed are effective June 1, 2021. JAMS’s Consumer Minimum Standards were updated effective May 1, 2024.\n\n| Rule or policy | Current private provision | Legal limitation |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| **Consumer Minimum Standards** | Reciprocity, clear notice, preservation of legal remedies, neutral arbitrator, reasonable location, counsel access, discovery, and consumer cost allocation | Administrative policy for qualifying mandatory predispute consumer clauses; not a Nebraska statute |\n| **Rule 3** | Rules in effect at commencement apply unless parties agreed to another version | Actual contract may select another version; amendment power can be challenged under contract law |\n| **Rule 5** | JAMS commencement follows listed contractual, consensual, or court-order routes | Commencement letter does not decide legal limitations or contract validity |\n| **Rule 6(c)** | Nonpayment may cause suspension or termination; another party may advance payment | Private administrative consequence |\n| **Rule 11** | Arbitrator claims authority over formation, existence, validity, scope, and parties | Cannot bypass a court’s antecedent formation determination |\n| **Rule 27** | Known rule violations may be waived by failure to object promptly in writing | Private procedural waiver |\n| **Rule 31** | Fee schedule and nonpayment provisions | Consumer Minimum Standards can supersede ordinary pro rata allocation in qualifying consumer cases |\n\n# K. Appeal and review boundary\n\n## K1. Nebraska\n\nNebraska §25-2620 expressly permits appeal from:\n\n- denial of an application to compel arbitration;\n- grant of an application to stay arbitration;\n- specified award-related orders; and\n- a judgment or decree under the UAA.\n\nWhere §25-2620 is silent, Nebraska appellate courts can apply the general final-order statute. Nebraska cases have treated some orders staying litigation pending arbitration as final, appealable special-proceeding orders. Full final-order and award-review doctrine remains outside this pass. [Nebraska Legislature+2](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2620)\n\n## K2. Federal\n\nFAA §16 generally permits immediate appeal from orders denying a stay or denying compulsion and generally bars interlocutory appeal from orders granting compulsion or a stay. A final decision concerning arbitration can be appealed. *Smith*’s mandatory-stay rule can therefore also affect immediate appellate posture by leaving the court case pending rather than producing a final dismissal. [U.S. Code+1](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s16/)\n\n# L. Bounded hypothetical workflows\n\nNo hypothetical below resolves an actual contract, account, provider, or lawsuit. No exact court or arbitration deadline is calculated because no actual service, filing, agreement, administrator, or order has been supplied.\n\n## Example 1 — Contested formation\n\n**Facts**\n\n- Creditor produces a cardmember agreement containing arbitration.\n- Consumer says they never received or accepted that version.\n- No signed application, activation record, electronic acceptance log, or reliable usage-to-version linkage is supplied.\n- Clause contains a broad delegation sentence.\n\n**Workflow**\n\nPlain text\n```\nCreditor moves to compel\n        ↓\nConsumer specifically denies assent\n        ↓\nCourt—not arbitrator—summarily determines formation\n        ↓\nDelegation has no operative effect unless a valid arbitration\nagreement is first proved\n```\n\nA boilerplate delegation clause cannot prove its own formation. The court may consider electronic records, use, notice, and surrounding conduct, but the movant retains the burden of establishing an agreement. [Nebraska.gov+2](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB)\n\n## Example 2 — Debt buyer with account-link gap\n\n**Evidence**\n\nPlain text\n```\nOriginal card agreement contains arbitration\nGeneric bill of sale transfers a portfolio\nSeparate file is said to identify sold accounts\nNo account schedule or reliable mapping is produced\n```\n\n**Result**\n\nThe original clause may be valid between consumer and issuer, but the buyer has not yet established that:\n\n- this account was transferred;\n- the clause was among the assigned rights;\n- the buyer is entitled to enforce it; or\n- the claim falls within it.\n\nThe court resolves the buyer’s entitlement before delegation or scope can be sent to an arbitrator.\n\n## Example 3 — Complete assignment and operative clause\n\n**Assumptions**\n\nPlain text\n```\nOriginal agreement and assent proved\nArbitration clause operative when account opened\nAccount-level sale schedule authenticates inclusion\nEvery intermediate assignment is established\nClause states assignees and successors may enforce\nClaim falls within broad account-dispute language\nNo waiver\n```\n\n**Potential result**\n\nThe assignee can satisfy the initial gateway. If the clause clearly delegates scope and enforceability, the arbitrator may then decide whether the particular account claim is arbitrable.\n\nThis does not establish the underlying debt balance or liability.\n\n## Example 4 — Specific delegation challenge versus whole-contract challenge\n\n### Specific delegation challenge\n\n“The delegation clause itself requires me to pay an unaffordable gateway fee before any arbitrator can decide whether the clause is enforceable.”\n\nThat is directed to delegation and is for the court.\n\n### Whole-contract challenge\n\n“The provider’s entire service agreement was illegal because the provider lacked required authorization.”\n\nAfter the court finds valid formation and a valid delegation, that whole-contract merits challenge may be for the arbitrator unless the alleged illegality also defeats formation or specifically invalidates delegation.\n\nThe labels are not conclusive; the actual theory and requested relief control. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010566PUB)\n\n## Example 5 — Pending Nebraska lawsuit, compel motion, no stay yet\n\n**Facts**\n\nPlain text\n```\nComplaint served\nOrdinary answer period running\nDefendant sends arbitration demand\nDefendant files a motion to compel\nNo stay or extension order has been entered\n```\n\n**Result**\n\n- The private demand does not stay the lawsuit.\n- The compel motion is not a listed Rule §6-1112 motion that automatically changes the answer deadline.\n- Arbitration should be preserved as an affirmative defense.\n- A qualifying §25-2603 stay, court extension, or stipulation is needed to alter court obligations.\n\nThis example does not calculate a date for any actual defendant. [Nebraska Judicial Branch+3](https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases-effective-january-1-2025/%C2%A7-6-1112-defenses-and-objections-when-and-how-presented-pleading-or-motion-motion-judgment-pleadings)\n\n## Example 6 — County-court debt suit\n\n**Facts**\n\n- Ordinary debt action is pending in Nebraska county court.\n- Contract contains arbitration.\n- One party seeks relief under the UAA.\n\n**Result**\n\nNebraska’s UAA defines “court” as district court. The exact mechanism for coordinating a district-court arbitration application with a pending county-court debt case was not resolved by a located controlling decision. It should not be assumed that the county court can exercise every UAA power or that a private demand automatically stays the county case. [Nebraska Legislature+1](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2618)\n\n## Example 7 — Rules incorporated, version uncertain\n\n**Facts**\n\n- A 2014 contract says disputes use “AAA rules.”\n- It does not specify Consumer, Commercial, or a dated version.\n- A claim is filed in 2026.\n- AAA’s current R-1 says the 2025 Consumer Rules apply to qualifying consumer agreements.\n\n**Result**\n\nAAA can make an administrative determination under its rules, but the legal questions remain:\n\n- which rules were incorporated;\n- whether future amendments were authorized;\n- whether the agreement qualifies as a consumer agreement;\n- whether the consumer had notice;\n- and whether the incorporated delegation is clear and unmistakable.\n\nAAA R-1 is evidence of AAA’s administrative position, not a conclusive judicial interpretation of the 2014 contract. [American Arbitration Association](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf)\n\n## Example 8 — Conflicting contracts\n\n**Facts**\n\nPlain text\n```\nAccount agreement:\n    arbitration plus delegation\n\nLater settlement agreement:\n    Nebraska courts have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes\n    concerning the settlement\n```\n\n**Result**\n\nThe court decides which agreement governs a settlement dispute. The earlier delegation clause does not automatically send the contract-conflict issue to the arbitrator. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf)\n\n## Example 9 — Litigation-conduct waiver\n\n**Facts**\n\n- Plaintiff knew of arbitration.\n- Plaintiff filed suit.\n- Plaintiff pursued merits discovery and a dispositive ruling.\n- After an adverse ruling, plaintiff moved to compel.\n\n**Analysis**\n\nPlain text\n```\nKnowledge of right                       assumed\nConduct inconsistent with arbitration   substantial\nPrejudice                                not a required element\nDecisionmaker                            court\nScope                                    claim-specific\n```\n\nThe court can find waiver without requiring the defendant to prove arbitration-specific prejudice. Different newly added claims may require separate analysis. [Nebraska.gov+2](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008874PUB)\n\n## Example 10 — Early preservation rather than waiver\n\n**Facts**\n\n- Defendant raises arbitration in its first responsive filing.\n- Promptly moves to compel and asks for a stay.\n- Does not seek a merits determination before the gateway ruling.\n\n**Result**\n\nThose facts are consistent with preserving arbitration. They do not independently establish formation, assignment, scope, or entitlement.\n\n## Example 11 — Participation in arbitration without objection\n\n**Facts**\n\n- Party participates through hearing on the merits.\n- It never clearly objects to arbitrability.\n- It loses and later asks a court to declare the dispute nonarbitrable.\n\n**Result**\n\nUnder *Garlock*, the party faces waiver or forfeiture of the arbitrability objection.\n\n### Preserved branch\n\nIf the party clearly and explicitly objects before the merits hearing and continues only under protest, later judicial review can remain available. [Nebraska.gov](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00011615PUB)\n\n## Example 12 — Current JAMS consumer-cost policy\n\n**Assumptions**\n\n- Actual clause selects JAMS.\n- Transaction qualifies under JAMS’s consumer standards.\n- Consumer initiates arbitration.\n- No contract term or law supplies a more favorable allocation.\n\n**Private policy result**\n\nPlain text\n```\nConsumer required JAMS payment       $250\nCompany responsibility               remaining JAMS and arbitrator costs\n```\n\nThis is a JAMS administrative standard, not a Nebraska statutory damages figure or universal unconscionability threshold. The actual clause, rule version, JAMS acceptance, and hardship facts remain necessary. [JAMS](https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards)\n\n## Example 13 — Administrator nonpayment\n\n**Facts**\n\n- Company was required to pay AAA or JAMS fees.\n- Company does not pay.\n- Administrator suspends or terminates administration.\n\n**Result**\n\nThe private rules can produce administrative suspension, limits, termination, or an opportunity for another party to advance fees. They do not automatically establish:\n\n- waiver under Nebraska law;\n- judgment for the consumer;\n- dismissal of a court claim;\n- tolling of a statutory limitation;\n- or extinguishment of the debt.\n\nThose consequences require the contract, notices, governing law, and a court decision. [American Arbitration Association+2](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf)\n\n## Example 14 — CROA statutory-remedy claim\n\n**Facts**\n\n- Provider is assumed covered by CROA.\n- Consumer proves assent to a valid arbitration clause.\n- Clause broadly covers statutory claims.\n- Clause does not eliminate CROA remedies on its face.\n\n**Result**\n\n*CompuCredit* forecloses a categorical argument that CROA claims can never be arbitrated. The arbitrator must still apply applicable statutory remedies. A separate clause purporting to waive those remedies requires its own nonwaiver and severability analysis. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/565bv.pdf)\n\n## Example 15 — Small-claims carveout\n\n**Facts**\n\n- AAA Consumer Rules apply.\n- Claim is within the amount jurisdiction of an appropriate small-claims court.\n- AAA R-9 permits election of small claims.\n\n**Result**\n\nAAA may administratively close the arbitration under its rule. Actual Nebraska Small Claims Court eligibility remains governed by Nebraska law; a private rule cannot override state limits on parties, assignment, jurisdiction, or procedure. [American Arbitration Association](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf)\n\n## Example 16 — Class arbitration ambiguity\n\n**Clause**\n\n“Any dispute shall be resolved by arbitration.”\n\nThe clause says nothing about class arbitration.\n\n**Result**\n\nAmbiguity or silence is insufficient to authorize class arbitration under *Lamps Plus*. An affirmative contractual basis is required. That conclusion does not by itself decide whether a separate class-action waiver is enforceable. [Supreme Court+1](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf)\n\n# M. Official and private form inventory\n\n| Form or resource | Full direct URL | Current status or version | Purpose | Limitation |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **Nebraska Judicial Branch Master Forms List** | https://nebraskajudicial.gov/forms | Current public page checked October 26, 2026 | Official Nebraska forms inventory | No standardized Nebraska petition or motion to compel/stay arbitration was located in the bounded search; absence from page is not proof no local form exists. [Nebraska Judicial Branch](https://nebraskajudicial.gov/forms) |\n| **AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules, Forms & Fee Schedule page** | https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/ | Current public page | Provides current rules, demand form, fee schedule, and fee-waiver materials | Private administrator materials; not Nebraska court forms and not proof of enforceability. [American Arbitration Association](https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/) |\n| **AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules** | https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf | Amended and effective May 1, 2025 | Consumer arbitration administration | Actual contract and incorporated version control legal application. [American Arbitration Association](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf) |\n| **JAMS Consumer Minimum Standards** | https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards | Updated/effective May 1, 2024 | Administrative fairness standards for qualifying mandatory consumer clauses | Private policy; excludes or treats some commercial and negotiated arrangements differently. [JAMS](https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards) |\n| **JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules** | https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration | Effective June 1, 2021 | General JAMS administration | The contract may select another rule set or version. [JAMS](https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration) |\n| **JAMS Arbitration Forms & Documents** | https://www.jamsadr.com/adr-forms | Current public page | Private demands, stipulations, subpoenas, proof-of-service samples | JAMS expressly identifies forms as samples and directs parties to check the contract and applicable law. [JAMS](https://www.jamsadr.com/adr-forms) |\n\n# N. Source register\n\n| Source ID | Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint | Version/status and actual access | Read bounds and limits |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_NE-P15-S001** | **Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act**, Nebraska Legislature. https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.01 subsections (a)–(g); https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.02 complete section; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2603 subsections (a)–(e); https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2604; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2604.01; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2606; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2607; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2608; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2609; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2617; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2618; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2619; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2620; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2621. | Current official codification freshly read October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC. No complete enactment-history audit. | State validity, exclusions, special warning, compel/stay, court, venue, appeal, hearing, counsel, subpoena, and award boundaries. Award confirmation/vacatur provisions not analyzed in full. [Nebraska Legislature+13](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.01) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S002** | **Nebraska civil pleading and timing rules**, Judicial Branch. https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases-effective-january-1-2025/%C2%A7-6-1112-defenses-and-objections-when-and-how-presented-pleading-or-motion-motion-judgment-pleadings; https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases/%C2%A7-6-1106-time; https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases-effective-january-1-2025/%C2%A7-6-1108-general-rules-pleading. | Current rules freshly read October 26, 2026; principal 2024 amendments effective January 1, 2025. | Answer timing, Rule 12 effects, extensions, arbitration and waiver as affirmative defenses. [Nebraska Judicial Branch+2](https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases-effective-january-1-2025/%C2%A7-6-1112-defenses-and-objections-when-and-how-presented-pleading-or-motion-motion-judgment-pleadings) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S003** | **Federal Arbitration Act**, Office of Law Revision Counsel. https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s1/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s2/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s3/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s5/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s6/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s16/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s401/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s402/. | Each page displays laws in effect through Public Law 119-124, October 15, 2026; freshly read October 26. | Commerce, written-agreement rule, stay, federal compulsion, appointment, motion procedure, appeals, transportation-worker exclusion, and EFAA gateway. [U.S. Code+8](https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s1/) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S004** | ***Cullinane v. Beverly Enterprises–Nebraska*, 300 Neb. 210, 912 N.W.2d 774 (2018)**, Nebraska Supreme Court. https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB; printed pp. 223–228, zero-based PDF indices 13–18. | Final published opinion, freshly read and visually checked October 26, 2026. | Formation-first analysis, delegation, clause-specific challenge, Nebraska state procedure under FAA. [Nebraska.gov+2](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S005** | ***Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co.*, 299 Neb. 545, 909 N.W.2d 614 (2018)**. https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010566PUB; printed pp. 558–568, zero-based indices 13–23, particularly pp. 565–568/indices 20–23. | Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | Specific delegation challenge and insurance exception; insurance merits not generalized to ordinary debt. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010566PUB) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S006** | ***Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. v. Hunan, Inc.*, 276 Neb. 700, 757 N.W.2d 205 (2008)**. https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00000319PUB; printed pp. 703–708, zero-based PDF indices 3–8. | Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion. Holding was boundedly reused from reviewed PASS-06/PASS-13 and freshly rechecked October 26, 2026. | FAA commerce and preemption of §25-2602.02; does not decide every state contract defense. [Nebraska.gov+2](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00000319PUB) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S007** | ***Kingery Construction Co. v. 6135 O Street Car Wash, LLC*, 312 Neb. 502 (2022)**. https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008874PUB; printed pp. 508–516, zero-based indices 6–14. | Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | Litigation-conduct waiver; prejudice requirement overruled; court ordinarily decides waiver. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008874PUB) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S008** | ***Boyd v. Cook*, 298 Neb. 819, 906 N.W.2d 31 (2018)**. https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010454PUB; printed pp. 827–833, zero-based indices 8–14. | Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | Arbitration right is contractual and not self-executing; court should not invoke for parties. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010454PUB) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S009** | ***Garlock v. 3DS Properties, L.L.C.*, 303 Neb. 521, 930 N.W.2d 503 (2019)**. https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00011615PUB; printed pp. 529–534, zero-based indices 8–13. | Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | FAA commerce not automatic; participation waiver and preservation by explicit objection. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00011615PUB) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S010** | ***EAD Engineering, Inc. v. Purac America Inc.*, 34 Neb. App. 24 (2026)**. https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB; printed pp. 29–33, zero-based indices 5–9. | Final published Nebraska Court of Appeals opinion filed January 27, 2026; freshly read October 26. | Formation, assignment, nonsignatory theories, incorporation, agency remand. [Nebraska.gov+2](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S011** | ***Noah’s Ark Processors, LLC v. UniFirst Corp.*, 310 Neb. 896 (2022)**. https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008378PUB; printed pp. 899–906, zero-based indices 3–10. | Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | Fact-specific nonsignatory equitable estoppel; old prejudice discussion qualified by *Morgan/Kingery*. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008378PUB) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S012** | ***Frohberg Electric Co. v. Grossenburg Implement, Inc.*, 297 Neb. 356, 900 N.W.2d 32 (2017)**. https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010299PUB; printed pp. 363–365, zero-based indices 7–9. | Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | Incorporation by reference and state-law formation. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010299PUB) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S013** | ***Heard v. Silvus*, 33 Neb. App. 20, 9 N.W.3d 462 (2024)**. https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00011157PUB; printed pp. 27–29, zero-based indices 7–9. | Final published Nebraska Court of Appeals opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | Statutory disclosure claim outside clause scope; UAA application requirements. [Nebraska.gov](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00011157PUB) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S014** | ***American National Bank v. Medved*, 281 Neb. 799, 801 N.W.2d 230 (2011)**. https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00003683PUB; printed pp. 804–806, zero-based indices 5–7. | Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | Choice-of-law framework only. [Nebraska.gov+1](https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00003683PUB) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S015** | ***Fallo v. High-Tech Institute*, 559 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2009)**. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/09/03/082437P.pdf; slip pp. 3–5, zero-based indices 2–4. | Final published Eighth Circuit opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | Specific AAA incorporation as delegation; Missouri-law merits not treated as Nebraska law. [U.S. Court of Appeals](https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/09/03/082437P.pdf) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S016** | ***Lackie Drug Store, Inc. v. OptumRx, Inc.*, No. 24-1231 (8th Cir. July 16, 2025)**. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/07/241231P.pdf; slip pp. 6, 9, and 13, zero-based indices 5, 8, and 12. | Final published Eighth Circuit opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | Claim-specific litigation waiver after substantial litigation. [U.S. Court of Appeals+1](https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/07/241231P.pdf) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S017** | ***Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski*, 602 U.S. 143 (2024)**. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf; slip pp. 4–8, zero-based indices 3–7. | Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | Court decides which conflicting contract governs despite earlier delegation. [Supreme Court+1](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S018** | ***Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.*, 586 U.S. 63 (2019)**. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf; slip pp. 4–6, zero-based indices 3–5. | Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | No wholly-groundless exception after valid delegation. [Supreme Court+1](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S019** | ***Smith v. Spizzirri*, 601 U.S. 472 (2024)**. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf; slip pp. 4–5, zero-based indices 3–4. | Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | Federal court must stay rather than dismiss when §3 stay requested. [Supreme Court+1](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S020** | ***Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.*, 596 U.S. 411 (2022)**. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf; slip pp. 5–7, zero-based indices 4–6. | Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | No arbitration-specific prejudice requirement for waiver. [Supreme Court+1](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S021** | ***New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira*, 586 U.S. 105 (2019)**. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-340_o7kq.pdf; slip pp. 5–8, zero-based indices 4–7. | Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | Court decides FAA §1 transportation-worker exclusion despite delegation. [Supreme Court+1](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-340_o7kq.pdf) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S022** | ***CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood*, 565 U.S. 95 (2012)**. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/565bv.pdf; printed U.S. Reports pp. 95–96 and 104, zero-based PDF indices 308–309 and 317. | Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion. Holding boundedly reused from reviewed PASS-06/PASS-13 and rechecked October 26, 2026. | CROA does not categorically bar arbitration; no approval of remedy-stripping clauses. [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/565bv.pdf) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S023** | ***Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela*, 587 U.S. 176 (2019)**. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf; slip pp. 4–9, zero-based indices 3–8. | Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026. | Ambiguity insufficient for class arbitration; class-waiver merits not comprehensively analyzed. [Supreme Court+1](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S024** | **AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures**, American Arbitration Association. https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf; R-1 printed p.6/PDF index 5; R-2 p.7/index 6; R-4 pp.8–10/indices 7–9; R-7 and R-9 p.11/index 10; R-12 p.13/index 12; R-39 p.23/index 22; R-55/R-56 p.27/index 26. | Amended and effective May 1, 2025; freshly read and visually checked October 26, 2026. | Private administrator rules, not law or enforceability opinion. [American Arbitration Association+9](https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S025** | **AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules, Forms & Fee Schedule**, AAA. https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/. | Current public page freshly read October 26, 2026. | Current private forms and fee links; no numerical AAA fee adopted here. [American Arbitration Association](https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S026** | **JAMS Consumer Minimum Standards**, JAMS. https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards; standards 1–10 and footnote scope. | Updated and effective May 1, 2024; freshly read October 26, 2026. | Private administrative fairness policy, not Nebraska law. [JAMS+1](https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S027** | **JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures**, JAMS. https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration; Rules 1, 3, 5, 6(c), 9, 11, 27, and 31. | Effective June 1, 2021; freshly read October 26, 2026. | Private rules; contract may choose another version or rule set. [JAMS+5](https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S028** | **JAMS Arbitration Forms & Documents**, JAMS. https://www.jamsadr.com/adr-forms. | Current public page freshly read October 26, 2026. | Sample private forms; JAMS directs users to contract and applicable law. [JAMS](https://www.jamsadr.com/adr-forms) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S029** | **Nebraska UETA—electronic assent gateway**, Legislature. https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-632; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-634; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-636. | Current official codification freshly read October 26, 2026; consistent with reviewed PASS-13’s bounded relationship correction. | Electronic agreement, legal recognition, and attribution only; full E-SIGN/UETA dossier not repeated. [Nebraska Legislature+2](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-632) |\n| **S_NE-P15-S030** | **Nebraska Judicial Branch Master Forms List and bounded official searches**, https://nebraskajudicial.gov/forms; Nebraska appellate repository and official statutory searches for arbitration form, compel, stay, assignment, waiver, consumer arbitration, and 2025–2026 currentness. | Freshly checked October 26, 2026. | No standardized statewide Nebraska motion or petition to compel/stay arbitration located. Not a local-form, unpublished-order, trial-docket, or commercial-citator search. [Nebraska Judicial Branch](https://nebraskajudicial.gov/forms) |\n\n# O. Claim register\n\n| Claim ID | Precise assertion | Source and pinpoint | Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_NE-P15-C001** | Nebraska validates written postdispute arbitration agreements subject to general contract defenses. | S001, §25-2602.01(a). | All parties; formation/enforcement; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C002** | Nebraska validates written predispute clauses subject to general contract defenses when voluntarily and willingly entered. | S001, §25-2602.01(b). | State-UAA branch; FAA interaction fact-dependent; **high for text**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C003** | Contract terms can generally vary UAA provisions except listed statutory exclusions. | S001, §25-2602.01(d)–(g). | Agreement interpretation; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C004** | Nebraska UAA exclusions are specific and do not generally exempt ordinary unsecured consumer debt. | S001, §25-2602.01(e)–(g). | Scope; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C005** | Standardized sole-remedy arbitration agreements require Nebraska’s capitalized/underlined adjoining-signature warning under state law. | S001, §25-2602.02. | Formation/enforcement; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C006** | FAA preempts §25-2602.02 for FAA-covered contracts. | S006, *Aramark*, pp.703–708/indices3–8. | Interstate-commerce contract; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C007** | Generally applicable contract defenses remain available under FAA §2. | S003, §2; S006. | Enforcement; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C008** | FAA applies only to written arbitration provisions in maritime or commerce-involving contracts. | S003, §§1–2. | Federal gateway; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C009** | Interstate-commerce scope is broad but not automatic. | S006; S009. | Court gateway; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C010** | FAA §1 transportation-worker exclusion is for court to decide before compulsion despite delegation. | S003, §1; S021. | Narrow employment gateway; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C011** | EFAA applicability is for court despite delegation and is a narrow sexual-assault/harassment branch. | S003, §§401–402. | Narrow federal exception; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C012** | Court first decides whether any arbitration agreement was formed. | S004, *Cullinane*, pp.223–225/indices13–15. | Formation; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C013** | A delegation clause cannot establish its own formation. | S004; S017. | Formation; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C014** | Court decides which conflicting contract governs despite an earlier delegation clause. | S017, *Coinbase*. | Contract selection; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C015** | Scope and enforceability are for court by default but can be delegated clearly and unmistakably. | S004, pp.224–225/indices14–15. | Gateway; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C016** | Delegation is a separate, severable antecedent arbitration agreement. | S004; S005. | Gateway; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C017** | A challenge specifically directed to delegation is decided by court. | S005, pp.565–568/indices20–23. | Gateway; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C018** | Whole-contract challenge ordinarily goes to arbitrator after valid formation and delegation. | S005; S018. | Merits/gateway; **high with formation predicate**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C019** | No wholly-groundless exception permits court to bypass a valid delegation. | S018, *Henry Schein*. | Scope gateway; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C020** | Specific fraud in execution or inducement of arbitration clause remains judicial. | S004, pp.225–226/indices15–16. | Clause-specific challenge; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C021** | Electronic record or signature can satisfy writing/signature, but agreement and attribution must be proved. | S029, §§86-632, 86-634, 86-636. | Formation; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C022** | Clear incorporation by reference can include an arbitration provision. | S012, *Frohberg*. | Formation; **high, document-specific**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C023** | Incorporation of AAA rules can constitute clear delegation on a sufficiently specific contract. | S015, *Fallo*. | Delegation; **high for case, not universal**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C024** | Private AAA/JAMS rule text does not independently establish contract formation. | S004, S017, S024, S027. | Formation; **high synthesis**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C025** | An assignee can receive arbitration rights only through an actual assignment and account connection. | S010. | Assignee/debt buyer; **high, fact-dependent**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C026** | Generic ownership or servicing label does not prove entitlement to compel. | S010; general formation law. | Assignee/servicer; **high bounded conclusion**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C027** | Nebraska recognizes six possible nonsignatory enforcement theories. | S010, pp.29–33/indices5–9. | Nonsignatory; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C028** | Equitable estoppel to bind nonsignatory is fact-intensive and requires more than incidental benefit. | S011. | Nonsignatory; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C029** | UAA application is made by motion; initial application served like summons unless agreed otherwise. | S001, §25-2617. | State procedure; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C030** | UAA “court” is Nebraska district court. | S001, §25-2618. | State jurisdiction; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C031** | If agreement existence is denied, court summarily determines formation. | S001, §25-2603(a)–(b). | State gateway; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C032** | A qualifying pending action or severable arbitrable issue is stayed under §25-2603(d). | S001, §25-2603(d). | State stay; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C033** | Private arbitration demand alone is not a court stay. | S001; S008. | Procedure; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C034** | State court can use Nebraska summary procedure even when FAA substantive law governs. | S004, pp.226–228/indices16–18. | State FAA case; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C035** | Exact UAA route for a debt suit already pending in county court remains unresolved because statutory “court” is district court. | S001, §§25-2603(c), 25-2618; bounded search. | Procedure; **partial/HOLD**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C036** | FAA §4 requires independent federal jurisdiction and provides federal compulsion procedure. | S003, §4. | Federal court; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C037** | Federal court must stay on request when §3 predicates are met. | S003, §3; S019. | Federal court; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C038** | Federal court cannot dismiss solely because all claims are arbitrable when a §3 stay is requested. | S019, *Smith*. | Federal court; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C039** | Motion to compel is not listed among Nebraska Rule 12 motions that automatically alter answer deadline. | S002, §6-1112. | State pleading; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C040** | Arbitration and waiver should be preserved as affirmative defenses. | S002, §6-1108(c). | Pleading; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C041** | Court can extend rule deadlines only through applicable good-cause/excusable-neglect procedure; statutory deadlines need statutory authority. | S002, §6-1106. | Procedure; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C042** | Arbitration provisions are not self-executing and court cannot compel sua sponte for noninvoking parties. | S008, *Boyd*. | Procedure; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C043** | Litigation-conduct waiver does not require prejudice after *Morgan/Kingery*. | S007; S020. | Waiver; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C044** | Court generally decides litigation-conduct waiver. | S007. | Waiver; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C045** | Litigation-conduct waiver can be claim-specific. | S016, *Lackie*. | Waiver; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C046** | Voluntary merits participation in arbitration without objection can waive later arbitrability challenge. | S009, *Garlock*. | Arbitral participation; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C047** | Clear, explicit objection before merits can preserve later judicial challenge. | S009. | Arbitral participation; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C048** | AAA and JAMS rule-waiver provisions govern private rule objections, not formation by themselves. | S024 R-39; S027 Rule 27. | Arbitration procedure; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C049** | AAA can administratively suspend for judicial intervention under R-2, but that is not a court stay. | S024 R-2. | Administrator procedure; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C050** | AAA Registry review is administrative and not a legal enforceability opinion. | S024 R-12. | Administrator status; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C051** | AAA/JAMS nonpayment can suspend or terminate administration but creates no universal Nebraska merits consequence. | S024 R-55/R-56; S027 Rules 6/31. | Nonpayment; **high private-rule text, legal consequence held**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C052** | JAMS current consumer standard generally limits initiating consumer payment to $250 and places remaining costs on company. | S026 Standard 7. | Qualifying JAMS consumer case; **high private policy**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C053** | No current AAA numerical fee was adopted in this report; current schedule must be checked. | S025. | Cost analysis; **high methodological limit**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C054** | CROA does not categorically prohibit arbitration. | S022, *CompuCredit*. | Covered CROA claim; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C055** | Arbitration does not automatically waive statutory remedies. | S022; S026 Standard 3. | Statutory claim; **high bounded conclusion**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C056** | Ambiguity does not authorize class arbitration; affirmative contractual basis is required. | S023, *Lamps Plus*. | Class arbitration; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C057** | FAA §16 generally allows immediate appeal from denial but not interlocutory grant of compulsion/stay. | S003, §16. | Federal appeal; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C058** | Nebraska §25-2620 expressly permits listed arbitration appeals; silent orders may require general final-order analysis. | S001, §25-2620; S005/S007. | State appeal; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C059** | Choice-of-law clause is relevant but does not automatically displace FAA or select every arbitration procedure. | S014; S006. | Contract interpretation; **high**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C060** | No standardized statewide Nebraska compel/stay arbitration form was located. | S030. | Forms; **bounded negative finding**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C061** | No universal Nebraska rule was located that an arbitration demand tolls a limitation period. | S024–S027; bounded search. | Timing; **HOLD**. |\n| **S_NE-P15-C062** | Full award confirmation, vacatur, modification, and enforcement remain outside this pass. | Scope boundary. | **Expressly open**. |\n\n# P. Granular coverage and remaining gaps\n\n| Assigned question | Status | Claim IDs | Exact missing evidence or next action |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Nebraska UAA validity | **Answered** | C001–C004 | Actual agreement and transaction |\n| Nebraska special notice | **Answered with FAA qualification** | C005–C006 | FAA commerce determination |\n| FAA commerce | **Answered as rule; fact-specific application held** | C008–C009 | Actual contracting and transaction facts |\n| FAA transportation-worker exclusion | **Answered as narrow gateway** | C010 | Actual work and commerce facts |\n| EFAA exception | **Answered as narrow gateway** | C011 | Actual alleged dispute and accrual |\n| Insurance exception | **Answered only as boundary** | C004 | Actual insurance relationship; excluded ordinary-debt merits |\n| Choice of law | **Answered generally** | C059 | Actual clause, selected state, contacts, scope |\n| Written/electronic agreement | **Answered generally** | C021 | Complete record, consent, attribution |\n| Consumer assent | **Answered as judicial formation issue** | C012–C014 | Actual notice, signature, use, opt-out |\n| Original creditor enforcement | **Answered generally** | C012, C015 | Operative contract and account linkage |\n| Assignee/debt buyer enforcement | **Answered conditionally** | C025–C026 | Assignment chain, account schedule, clause transfer |\n| Servicer enforcement | **Partial** | C026–C028 | Servicing/agency agreement and clause scope |\n| Trustee enforcement | **Partial** | C027 | Trust instrument and account ownership |\n| Affiliate enforcement | **Partial** | C027–C028 | Agency, alter ego, estoppel, beneficiary facts |\n| Nonsignatory theories | **Answered** | C027–C028 | Actual doctrine-specific facts |\n| Conflicting contracts | **Answered** | C014 | Complete contracts and sequence |\n| Incorporation by reference | **Answered generally** | C022–C024 | Exact reference, version, availability |\n| Incorporation of AAA/JAMS rules | **Answered conditionally** | C023–C024 | Actual clause and selected rule set |\n| Court decides formation | **Answered** | C012–C014 | Formation evidence |\n| Court decides clause/delegation challenge | **Answered** | C017, C020 | Specific challenge language |\n| Whole-contract challenge | **Answered conditionally** | C018 | Valid formation and delegation |\n| Wholly-groundless exception | **Answered as unavailable** | C019 | Valid delegation predicate |\n| Nebraska UAA motion/service | **Answered** | C029–C031 | Actual application and service |\n| Nebraska UAA venue | **Answered** | S001 | Contract hearing location and adverse-party residence |\n| Nebraska state stay | **Answered** | C032–C033 | Qualifying application or order |\n| County-court coordination | **Unresolved** | C035 | Controlling case, local order, or procedural authority |\n| Federal §4 proceeding | **Answered** | C036 | Independent federal jurisdiction |\n| Federal §3 stay | **Answered** | C037–C038 | Agreement, arbitrable issue, no default, stay request |\n| State answer deadline during compel dispute | **Answered as no automatic extension** | C039–C041 | Actual stay, extension, stipulation |\n| Sua sponte arbitration | **Answered as improper generally** | C042 | Party invocation |\n| Fraud/duress/unconscionability | **Answered as general-defense framework** | C007, C017–C020 | Actual clause and factual record |\n| Nebraska “voluntarily and willingly” condition under FAA | **Partial** | C002, C006–C007 | Controlling case applying subsection (b) under FAA |\n| Statutory-remedy nonwaiver | **Answered narrowly** | C054–C055 | Actual statute and clause |\n| CROA arbitration | **Answered as not categorically barred** | C054 | Actual CROA coverage and remedy language |\n| Class arbitration | **Answered** | C056 | Actual affirmative contractual basis |\n| Class-action waiver | **Partial/excluded** | — | Actual clause and statutory claim |\n| Jury waiver | **Partial** | S003/S004 | Actual formation dispute and preserved jury demand |\n| Litigation-conduct waiver | **Answered** | C043–C045 | Complete docket and claim chronology |\n| Participation waiver | **Answered** | C046–C048 | Actual arbitral objection and hearing record |\n| Nonpayment waiver/default | **Unresolved beyond private rules** | C051 | Actual notices, contract, administrator action, case authority |\n| AAA rule version | **Answered current version; contract application partial** | C023–C024, C049–C053 | Actual contract’s version language |\n| JAMS rule version | **Answered current version; contract application partial** | C024, C051–C052 | Actual contract and consumer classification |\n| Administrator fee allocation | **Answered only for current JAMS standard; AAA held** | C052–C053 | Current case-specific schedule and hardship rules |\n| Administrator clause registry | **Answered as administrative only** | C050 | Actual registered clause and current status |\n| Small-claims option in private rules | **Answered privately; Nebraska eligibility held** | S024 | Actual Nebraska Small Claims Court predicates |\n| Appeal from denial or grant | **Answered as gateway boundary** | C057–C058 | Exact order and finality |\n| Award confirmation/vacatur/modification | **Excluded/later** | C062 | Separate award-review pass |\n| Arbitration limitations tolling | **Not established** | C061 | Actual clause, filing date, applicable limitation law |\n| Full arbitration discovery | **Excluded** | — | Administrator rule, order, and substantive evidence needs |\n| Substantive debt standing/evidence | **Excluded except assignment gateway** | — | PASS-14 review and later work |\n| Service/default/vacatur | **Excluded except stay/response crossover** | — | PASS-12 review and later work |\n| Provider licensing/remedies | **Excluded except CROA gateway** | — | Reviewed provider passes and later work |\n| Secured, medical, government, tax, support, education sectors | **Excluded** | — | Sector-specific passes |\n| Local/tribal/country rules | **Excluded** | — | Separate jurisdictional work |\n| Named agreement or account result | **Not performed** | — | Actual private contract, account, notices, assignment, docket |\n| Component/state/parent/A066 acceptance | **Not granted** | — | Remaining registry components and scoped review |\n\n# Q. Researcher self-check\n\n## Freshly read in PASS-15\n\n- Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act provisions governing:written arbitration agreements;the voluntary-and-willing state condition;statutory exclusions;special warning;motions to compel and stay;formation trials;appointment and neutrality of arbitrators;hearing notice;counsel;subpoenas;award form;court, venue, appeal, and prospective application.\n- Current Nebraska pleading rules governing:answer timing;Rule 12 motions and their timing effects;extensions; andarbitration, award, and waiver as affirmative defenses.\n- Current FAA provisions:§§1–6;§16;and §§401–402.\n- Actual relevant portions of the following published decisions:*Cullinane v. Beverly Enterprises–Nebraska*;*Citizens of Humanity v. Applied Underwriters*;*Aramark v. Hunan*;*Kingery Construction v. 6135 O Street Car Wash*;*Boyd v. Cook*;*Garlock v. 3DS Properties*;*EAD Engineering v. Purac America*;*Noah’s Ark Processors v. UniFirst*;*Frohberg Electric v. Grossenburg Implement*;*Heard v. Silvus*;*American National Bank v. Medved*;*Fallo v. High-Tech Institute*;*Lackie Drug Store v. OptumRx*;*Coinbase v. Suski*;*Henry Schein v. Archer & White*;*Smith v. Spizzirri*;*Morgan v. Sundance*;*New Prime v. Oliveira*;*CompuCredit v. Greenwood*; and*Lamps Plus v. Varela*.\n- Current public AAA and JAMS rules, forms pages, fee-policy boundaries, consumer standards, judicial-intervention rules, delegation rules, rule-waiver provisions, and nonpayment provisions.\n- Nebraska UETA provisions necessary to confirm that an electronic record may satisfy a writing requirement while preserving assent and attribution requirements.\n\n## Explicit bounded reuse\n\n- *Aramark*’s FAA-preemption holding and *CompuCredit*’s CROA-arbitrability holding were previously used in reviewed provider-agreement work. They were reused here only for their arbitration gateway propositions and were freshly checked against the public opinions. No other PASS-06 or PASS-13 provider conclusion was imported.\n- PASS-14’s assignment and standing conclusions were not treated as reviewed premises. The arbitration-specific assignee and nonsignatory authorities were freshly read in *EAD Engineering*, *Frohberg*, *Noah’s Ark*, and the UAA/FAA sources.\n\n## Bounded negative or unresolved searches\n\nNo controlling public Nebraska or Eighth Circuit ordinary consumer-debt decision was located that conclusively resolves:\n\n- the exact UAA procedure when the debt lawsuit is pending in county court;\n- whether every application of §25-2602.01(b)’s “voluntarily and willingly” wording survives FAA preemption;\n- whether nonpayment of consumer-arbitration fees automatically waives arbitration under Nebraska law;\n- whether a private arbitration demand tolls a Nebraska limitation period;\n- one universal debt-buyer assignment package sufficient to inherit arbitration rights;\n- one universal rule for a servicer’s ability to compel in its own name;\n- or a statewide Nebraska judicial form for a motion or petition to compel or stay arbitration.\n\nThese are bounded search results, not findings that no unpublished, trial-level, local, commercial-citator, or later authority exists.\n\n## Currentness and status\n\n- Nebraska statutes and Judicial Branch rules were checked in their current public forms on October 26, 2026.\n- OLRC FAA pages display currency through Public Law 119-124, October 15, 2026.\n- AAA Consumer Rules are current as amended May 1, 2025.\n- JAMS Consumer Minimum Standards are current as updated May 1, 2024.\n- JAMS Comprehensive Rules are published as effective June 1, 2021.\n- No material proposed, stayed, vacated, or future-effective arbitration authority was relied upon as operative law. This was not a complete legislative or rule-history audit.\n\n## Not read or performed\n\n- No actual arbitration agreement, cardmember agreement, provider agreement, amendment, opt-out notice, electronic-consent record, bill of sale, account schedule, servicing agreement, trust agreement, court pleading, arbitration demand, administrator correspondence, payment notice, award, or docket.\n- No named consumer, provider, creditor, servicer, collector, debt buyer, arbitrator, or case search.\n- No filing, contact, fee quote, account action, purchase, private-data access, records request, administrator inquiry, or court inquiry.\n- No complete:arbitration-award confirmation, vacatur, or modification analysis;arbitration-discovery or evidentiary dossier;class-action waiver report;appeal or interlocutory-review report;substantive consumer fee, interest, or damages analysis;postjudgment enforcement, lien, garnishment, or exemption report;secured, medical, public, tax, support, education, probate, local, tribal, or foreign-law dossier.\n- No Deep Research, Work, Codex research generation, API, website action, publication, browser control, other Chat, CAPTCHA bypass, security workaround, or local-file save.\n\n**Focused disposition:** Nebraska arbitration is a contract gateway, not an automatic response to a debt suit. The court first determines whether the parties made an arbitration agreement, which contract governs, and whether the party seeking arbitration can invoke it. A valid and clear delegation can then move scope and enforceability questions to the arbitrator, but not create assent, account ownership, or assignment. Court deadlines continue unless a valid stay or extension intervenes. Litigation or arbitral conduct can waive rights without a special prejudice requirement, and private AAA or JAMS rules cannot replace the statutory and contractual proof required at the judicial gateway.\n\nEND S_NE PASS-15.\n\n","tables":[{"headers":["Actor or model","What must be established before arbitration can be compelled","Who decides the threshold issue","Principal unresolved facts"],"index":0,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Actor or model","What must be established before arbitration can be compelled","Who decides the threshold issue","Principal unresolved facts"],["Original creditor suing on its own consumer contract","Contract formation; consumer assent; operative version of terms; written arbitration provision; FAA or UAA applicability; claim scope; no waiver","Court first decides formation and governing contract; arbitrator may decide delegated scope or enforceability after valid delegation","Application, card activation or use, electronic assent, amendments, opt-out history, governing clause, account identity"],["Debt buyer or absolute assignee","All original-creditor predicates plus a legally sufficient assignment linking the account and transferring the contractual arbitration right","Court decides whether the consumer contract existed and whether movant is entitled to invoke it","Bill of sale, account schedule, intermediate transfers, clause survival, account linkage, buyer’s litigation conduct"],["Assignee for collection","Written or otherwise legally effective authority plus proof that arbitration right was included and can be invoked in assignee’s name","Court","Collection assignment, identity of owner, precise enforcement authority"],["Servicer suing or moving in its own name","Independent real-party or agency basis; contract or assignment authorizing enforcement; account linkage; clause scope","Court","Servicing agreement, power of attorney, owner identity, agency scope"],["Servicer acting for named owner","Owner’s contract and assent plus servicer’s authority to act for owner","Court decides formation and agency; delegated scope can follow","Actual owner, agency records, whether clause permits enforcement by agents or affiliates"],["Affiliate or corporate parent","A recognized nonsignatory theory—agency, alter ego, estoppel, third-party beneficiary, assumption, or incorporation","Court initially determines whether the nonsignatory can invoke the agreement","Corporate relationship alone is insufficient; conduct and contract language required"],["Trustee or securitization trust","Trust or transfer documents, account linkage, current entitlement, and inclusion of arbitration rights","Court","Pooling documents, schedules, trustee authority, servicer delegation"],["Consumer seeking to compel creditor or collector","Same formation, assignment, and scope proof; arbitration clauses are generally reciprocal only as their text and applicable law provide","Court","Clause wording, exclusions, small-claims carveout, forum rules"],["Debt-relief provider asserting arbitration against consumer","Actual provider entity, consumer assent, applicable agreement, scope, electronic-delivery validity, state/federal coverage, and no statutory prohibition","Court first; valid delegation can transfer later gateway issues","Actual contract, entity, Nebraska authorization, CROA or TSR predicates, consent and delivery records"],["Consumer asserting CROA claims against covered provider","CROA coverage and a valid arbitration agreement","Court first decides formation; CompuCredit holds CROA does not categorically prohibit arbitration","Provider status, representations, exemptions, clause remedy limitations"],["Nonsignatory consumer or household member","One of the recognized nonsignatory doctrines plus direct evidence of intent or legally sufficient conduct","Court","Benefit, reliance, agency, assumption, third-party-beneficiary wording"],["Party to a later contract conflicting with an earlier arbitration clause","Which contract governs the dispute","Court, even if the earlier contract delegates arbitrability","Contract sequence, integration or supersession language, claim relationship"],["Transportation worker employment agreement","FAA §1 classification before FAA compulsion","Court under New Prime","Occupation and interstate-commerce duties; not an ordinary consumer-debt exception"],["Qualifying sexual-assault or harassment dispute","Chapter 4 applicability and alleging-party election","Court notwithstanding delegation","Dispute accrual, allegations, agreement timing; outside ordinary debt"],["Insurance-policy dispute","Nebraska UAA insurance exclusion and federal preemption or reverse-preemption rules","Court","Actual policy relationship; ordinary debt does not inherit this exception"]]},{"headers":["Issue","Default decisionmaker","What is required to move it to the arbitrator","Authority and limitation"],"index":1,"links":[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+2"},{"href":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-632","text":"Nebraska Legislature\n+2"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf","text":"Supreme Court"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00000319PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+2"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-340_o7kq.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010566PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010566PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008874PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00011615PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+2"},{"href":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","text":"American Arbitration Association\n+2"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-632","text":"Nebraska Legislature\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf","text":"Supreme Court"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00000319PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-340_o7kq.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010566PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010566PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008874PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00011615PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","text":"American Arbitration Association\n+2"}]],"rows":[["Issue","Default decisionmaker","What is required to move it to the arbitrator","Authority and limitation"],["Was any arbitration agreement formed?","Court","It cannot be delegated before a valid arbitration agreement is found","Cullinane requires the court to perform formation analysis “as it always does”; Coinbase preserves court resolution of which contract governs. \nNebraska.gov\n+2"],["Was the electronic or written assent attributable to the consumer?","Court","Proof of actual agreement and attribution first","Nebraska UETA recognizes electronic records but requires agreement to transact electronically and attribution to the person. \nNebraska Legislature\n+2"],["Which of two conflicting contracts controls?","Court","A valid contract must first establish that this issue itself was delegated","Coinbase held the court decides whether an earlier delegation clause or later court-forum clause governs. \nSupreme Court"],["Is an assignee or debt buyer entitled to invoke the clause?","Court","Assignment, account linkage, transfer of arbitration right, and assent must be shown","Assignment does not create consumer assent or account linkage by itself. EAD treats assignee and nonsignatory questions as contract issues. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"],["Is a nonsignatory bound?","Court","Recognized doctrine supported by facts","Six theories recognized in EAD; Noah’s Ark shows estoppel’s fact-intensive nature. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"],["Does the FAA apply?","Court","Proof that the contract evidences interstate commerce and no statutory exclusion applies","Garlock, Aramark, New Prime. \nNebraska.gov\n+2"],["Does an FAA §1 or EFAA exception apply?","Court","No delegation overrides these antecedent statutory assignments","New Prime; 9 U.S.C. §402. \nSupreme Court\n+1"],["Does the claim fall within an admitted clause?","Court by default","Clear and unmistakable delegation","Cullinane; Heard kept a statutory disclosure claim outside a purchase-agreement clause on the clause’s language. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"],["Is the arbitration clause enforceable?","Court by default","Valid clear delegation, unless challenge targets formation or delegation itself","Cullinane and Citizens. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"],["Is the delegation clause itself valid?","Court when specifically challenged","A whole-contract challenge is not enough; the objection must be directed to delegation","Citizens and the separability doctrine. \nNebraska.gov"],["Is the contract as a whole illegal, fraudulent, or voidable?","Arbitrator after valid formation and delegation","Valid formation and valid delegation must first be established","Whole-contract validity differs from formation and clause-specific challenges. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"],["Is the arbitration argument “wholly groundless”?","Arbitrator after valid delegation","Valid formation and clear delegation","Henry Schein rejects a judicial wholly-groundless exception. \nSupreme Court\n+1"],["Has litigation conduct waived arbitration?","Court ordinarily","No delegation was identified as displacing this ordinary judicial function in the controlling Nebraska cases","Kingery preserves court determination and removes prejudice requirement. \nNebraska.gov"],["Was an objection to the arbitral process waived inside arbitration?","Arbitrator or reviewing court depending the issue","Timely written or explicit objection under applicable rules and law","Garlock, AAA R-39, JAMS Rule 27. \nNebraska.gov\n+2"],["Did administrative nonpayment terminate the case?","Administrator initially; court may later decide contractual consequences","Actual contract, private rules, notices, fault, and applicable law","AAA and JAMS may suspend or terminate; no universal Nebraska consequence was established. \nAmerican Arbitration Association\n+2"]]},{"headers":["Rule","Current private rule","Legal limitation"],"index":2,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Rule","Current private rule","Legal limitation"],["R-1","When a consumer agreement provides for AAA arbitration, the Consumer Rules generally apply; absent another agreed version, AAA applies the version in effect when filing requirements are met","Actual incorporation and assent remain judicial formation questions"],["R-2","If a party seeks judicial intervention within 30 days after AAA commencement and supplies documentation, AAA administratively suspends for 90 days, subject to extension","Private administrative suspension—not a Nebraska court stay"],["R-4","Demand, applicable agreement, and filing fee are needed to commence administration","Filing does not prove enforceability"],["R-5","Response generally requested within 14 calendar days; no response is treated as disagreement, not admission","Does not alter a Nebraska court answer deadline"],["R-7","Arbitrator claims authority over jurisdiction, existence, validity, and arbitrability","Court must first find a valid agreement incorporating the rule"],["R-9","Small-claims option is available under the rule","Actual Nebraska Small Claims Court eligibility remains governed by Nebraska law, including any assignment restrictions"],["R-12","AAA reviews and registers consumer clauses for administrative compliance","AAA says this is not a legal opinion on enforceability"],["R-39","Written objection required to preserve known rule noncompliance","Private procedural waiver only"],["R-55/R-56","Deposits and nonpayment remedies","No automatic merits default; defense cannot be precluded"],["R-58","AAA appellate process only where agreement provides it and fee conditions are met","Not a judicial appeal and not automatic"]]},{"headers":["Rule or policy","Current private provision","Legal limitation"],"index":3,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Rule or policy","Current private provision","Legal limitation"],["Consumer Minimum Standards","Reciprocity, clear notice, preservation of legal remedies, neutral arbitrator, reasonable location, counsel access, discovery, and consumer cost allocation","Administrative policy for qualifying mandatory predispute consumer clauses; not a Nebraska statute"],["Rule 3","Rules in effect at commencement apply unless parties agreed to another version","Actual contract may select another version; amendment power can be challenged under contract law"],["Rule 5","JAMS commencement follows listed contractual, consensual, or court-order routes","Commencement letter does not decide legal limitations or contract validity"],["Rule 6(c)","Nonpayment may cause suspension or termination; another party may advance payment","Private administrative consequence"],["Rule 11","Arbitrator claims authority over formation, existence, validity, scope, and parties","Cannot bypass a court’s antecedent formation determination"],["Rule 27","Known rule violations may be waived by failure to object promptly in writing","Private procedural waiver"],["Rule 31","Fee schedule and nonpayment provisions","Consumer Minimum Standards can supersede ordinary pro rata allocation in qualifying consumer cases"]]},{"headers":["Form or resource","Full direct URL","Current status or version","Purpose","Limitation"],"index":4,"links":[{"href":"https://nebraskajudicial.gov/forms","text":"Nebraska Judicial Branch"},{"href":"https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/","text":"American Arbitration Association"},{"href":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","text":"American Arbitration Association"},{"href":"https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards","text":"JAMS"},{"href":"https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration","text":"JAMS"},{"href":"https://www.jamsadr.com/adr-forms","text":"JAMS"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://nebraskajudicial.gov/forms","text":"Nebraska Judicial Branch"}],[{"href":"https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/","text":"American Arbitration Association"}],[{"href":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","text":"American Arbitration Association"}],[{"href":"https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards","text":"JAMS"}],[{"href":"https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration","text":"JAMS"}],[{"href":"https://www.jamsadr.com/adr-forms","text":"JAMS"}]],"rows":[["Form or resource","Full direct URL","Current status or version","Purpose","Limitation"],["Nebraska Judicial Branch Master Forms List","https://nebraskajudicial.gov/forms","Current public page checked October 26, 2026","Official Nebraska forms inventory","No standardized Nebraska petition or motion to compel/stay arbitration was located in the bounded search; absence from page is not proof no local form exists. \nNebraska Judicial Branch"],["AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules, Forms & Fee Schedule page","https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/","Current public page","Provides current rules, demand form, fee schedule, and fee-waiver materials","Private administrator materials; not Nebraska court forms and not proof of enforceability. \nAmerican Arbitration Association"],["AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules","https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","Amended and effective May 1, 2025","Consumer arbitration administration","Actual contract and incorporated version control legal application. \nAmerican Arbitration Association"],["JAMS Consumer Minimum Standards","https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards","Updated/effective May 1, 2024","Administrative fairness standards for qualifying mandatory consumer clauses","Private policy; excludes or treats some commercial and negotiated arrangements differently. \nJAMS"],["JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules","https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration","Effective June 1, 2021","General JAMS administration","The contract may select another rule set or version. \nJAMS"],["JAMS Arbitration Forms & Documents","https://www.jamsadr.com/adr-forms","Current public page","Private demands, stipulations, subpoenas, proof-of-service samples","JAMS expressly identifies forms as samples and directs parties to check the contract and applicable law. \nJAMS"]]},{"headers":["Source ID","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint","Version/status and actual access","Read bounds and limits"],"index":5,"links":[{"href":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.01","text":"Nebraska Legislature\n+13"},{"href":"https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases-effective-january-1-2025/%C2%A7-6-1112-defenses-and-objections-when-and-how-presented-pleading-or-motion-motion-judgment-pleadings","text":"Nebraska Judicial Branch\n+2"},{"href":"https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s1/","text":"U.S. Code\n+8"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+2"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010566PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00000319PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+2"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008874PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010454PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00011615PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+2"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008378PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010299PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00011157PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov"},{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00003683PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"},{"href":"https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/09/03/082437P.pdf","text":"U.S. Court of Appeals"},{"href":"https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/07/241231P.pdf","text":"U.S. Court of Appeals\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-340_o7kq.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/565bv.pdf","text":"Supreme Court"},{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","text":"American Arbitration Association\n+9"},{"href":"https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/","text":"American Arbitration Association"},{"href":"https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards","text":"JAMS\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration","text":"JAMS\n+5"},{"href":"https://www.jamsadr.com/adr-forms","text":"JAMS"},{"href":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-632","text":"Nebraska Legislature\n+2"},{"href":"https://nebraskajudicial.gov/forms","text":"Nebraska Judicial Branch"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.01","text":"Nebraska Legislature\n+13"}],[{"href":"https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases-effective-january-1-2025/%C2%A7-6-1112-defenses-and-objections-when-and-how-presented-pleading-or-motion-motion-judgment-pleadings","text":"Nebraska Judicial Branch\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s1/","text":"U.S. Code\n+8"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010566PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00000319PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008874PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010454PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00011615PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008378PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010299PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00011157PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov"}],[{"href":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00003683PUB","text":"Nebraska.gov\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/09/03/082437P.pdf","text":"U.S. Court of Appeals"}],[{"href":"https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/07/241231P.pdf","text":"U.S. Court of Appeals\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-340_o7kq.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/565bv.pdf","text":"Supreme Court"}],[{"href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf","text":"Supreme Court\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","text":"American Arbitration Association\n+9"}],[{"href":"https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/","text":"American Arbitration Association"}],[{"href":"https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards","text":"JAMS\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration","text":"JAMS\n+5"}],[{"href":"https://www.jamsadr.com/adr-forms","text":"JAMS"}],[{"href":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-632","text":"Nebraska Legislature\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://nebraskajudicial.gov/forms","text":"Nebraska Judicial Branch"}]],"rows":[["Source ID","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint","Version/status and actual access","Read bounds and limits"],["S_NE-P15-S001","Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act, Nebraska Legislature. https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.01 subsections (a)–(g); https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.02 complete section; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2603 subsections (a)–(e); https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2604; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2604.01; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2606; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2607; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2608; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2609; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2617; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2618; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2619; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2620; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2621.","Current official codification freshly read October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC. No complete enactment-history audit.","State validity, exclusions, special warning, compel/stay, court, venue, appeal, hearing, counsel, subpoena, and award boundaries. Award confirmation/vacatur provisions not analyzed in full. \nNebraska Legislature\n+13"],["S_NE-P15-S002","Nebraska civil pleading and timing rules, Judicial Branch. https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases-effective-january-1-2025/%C2%A7-6-1112-defenses-and-objections-when-and-how-presented-pleading-or-motion-motion-judgment-pleadings; https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases/%C2%A7-6-1106-time; https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases-effective-january-1-2025/%C2%A7-6-1108-general-rules-pleading.","Current rules freshly read October 26, 2026; principal 2024 amendments effective January 1, 2025.","Answer timing, Rule 12 effects, extensions, arbitration and waiver as affirmative defenses. \nNebraska Judicial Branch\n+2"],["S_NE-P15-S003","Federal Arbitration Act, Office of Law Revision Counsel. https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s1/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s2/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s3/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s5/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s6/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s16/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s401/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s402/.","Each page displays laws in effect through Public Law 119-124, October 15, 2026; freshly read October 26.","Commerce, written-agreement rule, stay, federal compulsion, appointment, motion procedure, appeals, transportation-worker exclusion, and EFAA gateway. \nU.S. Code\n+8"],["S_NE-P15-S004","Cullinane v. Beverly Enterprises–Nebraska, 300 Neb. 210, 912 N.W.2d 774 (2018), Nebraska Supreme Court. https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB; printed pp. 223–228, zero-based PDF indices 13–18.","Final published opinion, freshly read and visually checked October 26, 2026.","Formation-first analysis, delegation, clause-specific challenge, Nebraska state procedure under FAA. \nNebraska.gov\n+2"],["S_NE-P15-S005","Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., 299 Neb. 545, 909 N.W.2d 614 (2018). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010566PUB; printed pp. 558–568, zero-based indices 13–23, particularly pp. 565–568/indices 20–23.","Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Specific delegation challenge and insurance exception; insurance merits not generalized to ordinary debt. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S006","Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. v. Hunan, Inc., 276 Neb. 700, 757 N.W.2d 205 (2008). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00000319PUB; printed pp. 703–708, zero-based PDF indices 3–8.","Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion. Holding was boundedly reused from reviewed PASS-06/PASS-13 and freshly rechecked October 26, 2026.","FAA commerce and preemption of §25-2602.02; does not decide every state contract defense. \nNebraska.gov\n+2"],["S_NE-P15-S007","Kingery Construction Co. v. 6135 O Street Car Wash, LLC, 312 Neb. 502 (2022). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008874PUB; printed pp. 508–516, zero-based indices 6–14.","Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Litigation-conduct waiver; prejudice requirement overruled; court ordinarily decides waiver. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S008","Boyd v. Cook, 298 Neb. 819, 906 N.W.2d 31 (2018). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010454PUB; printed pp. 827–833, zero-based indices 8–14.","Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Arbitration right is contractual and not self-executing; court should not invoke for parties. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S009","Garlock v. 3DS Properties, L.L.C., 303 Neb. 521, 930 N.W.2d 503 (2019). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00011615PUB; printed pp. 529–534, zero-based indices 8–13.","Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","FAA commerce not automatic; participation waiver and preservation by explicit objection. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S010","EAD Engineering, Inc. v. Purac America Inc., 34 Neb. App. 24 (2026). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB; printed pp. 29–33, zero-based indices 5–9.","Final published Nebraska Court of Appeals opinion filed January 27, 2026; freshly read October 26.","Formation, assignment, nonsignatory theories, incorporation, agency remand. \nNebraska.gov\n+2"],["S_NE-P15-S011","Noah’s Ark Processors, LLC v. UniFirst Corp., 310 Neb. 896 (2022). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008378PUB; printed pp. 899–906, zero-based indices 3–10.","Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Fact-specific nonsignatory equitable estoppel; old prejudice discussion qualified by Morgan/Kingery. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S012","Frohberg Electric Co. v. Grossenburg Implement, Inc., 297 Neb. 356, 900 N.W.2d 32 (2017). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010299PUB; printed pp. 363–365, zero-based indices 7–9.","Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Incorporation by reference and state-law formation. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S013","Heard v. Silvus, 33 Neb. App. 20, 9 N.W.3d 462 (2024). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00011157PUB; printed pp. 27–29, zero-based indices 7–9.","Final published Nebraska Court of Appeals opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Statutory disclosure claim outside clause scope; UAA application requirements. \nNebraska.gov"],["S_NE-P15-S014","American National Bank v. Medved, 281 Neb. 799, 801 N.W.2d 230 (2011). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00003683PUB; printed pp. 804–806, zero-based indices 5–7.","Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Choice-of-law framework only. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S015","Fallo v. High-Tech Institute, 559 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2009). https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/09/03/082437P.pdf; slip pp. 3–5, zero-based indices 2–4.","Final published Eighth Circuit opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Specific AAA incorporation as delegation; Missouri-law merits not treated as Nebraska law. \nU.S. Court of Appeals"],["S_NE-P15-S016","Lackie Drug Store, Inc. v. OptumRx, Inc., No. 24-1231 (8th Cir. July 16, 2025). https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/07/241231P.pdf; slip pp. 6, 9, and 13, zero-based indices 5, 8, and 12.","Final published Eighth Circuit opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Claim-specific litigation waiver after substantial litigation. \nU.S. Court of Appeals\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S017","Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143 (2024). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf; slip pp. 4–8, zero-based indices 3–7.","Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Court decides which conflicting contract governs despite earlier delegation. \nSupreme Court\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S018","Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63 (2019). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf; slip pp. 4–6, zero-based indices 3–5.","Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","No wholly-groundless exception after valid delegation. \nSupreme Court\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S019","Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf; slip pp. 4–5, zero-based indices 3–4.","Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Federal court must stay rather than dismiss when §3 stay requested. \nSupreme Court\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S020","Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411 (2022). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf; slip pp. 5–7, zero-based indices 4–6.","Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","No arbitration-specific prejudice requirement for waiver. \nSupreme Court\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S021","New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. 105 (2019). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-340_o7kq.pdf; slip pp. 5–8, zero-based indices 4–7.","Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Court decides FAA §1 transportation-worker exclusion despite delegation. \nSupreme Court\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S022","CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95 (2012). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/565bv.pdf; printed U.S. Reports pp. 95–96 and 104, zero-based PDF indices 308–309 and 317.","Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion. Holding boundedly reused from reviewed PASS-06/PASS-13 and rechecked October 26, 2026.","CROA does not categorically bar arbitration; no approval of remedy-stripping clauses. \nSupreme Court"],["S_NE-P15-S023","Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U.S. 176 (2019). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf; slip pp. 4–9, zero-based indices 3–8.","Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Ambiguity insufficient for class arbitration; class-waiver merits not comprehensively analyzed. \nSupreme Court\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S024","AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures, American Arbitration Association. https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf; R-1 printed p.6/PDF index 5; R-2 p.7/index 6; R-4 pp.8–10/indices 7–9; R-7 and R-9 p.11/index 10; R-12 p.13/index 12; R-39 p.23/index 22; R-55/R-56 p.27/index 26.","Amended and effective May 1, 2025; freshly read and visually checked October 26, 2026.","Private administrator rules, not law or enforceability opinion. \nAmerican Arbitration Association\n+9"],["S_NE-P15-S025","AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules, Forms & Fee Schedule, AAA. https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/.","Current public page freshly read October 26, 2026.","Current private forms and fee links; no numerical AAA fee adopted here. \nAmerican Arbitration Association"],["S_NE-P15-S026","JAMS Consumer Minimum Standards, JAMS. https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards; standards 1–10 and footnote scope.","Updated and effective May 1, 2024; freshly read October 26, 2026.","Private administrative fairness policy, not Nebraska law. \nJAMS\n+1"],["S_NE-P15-S027","JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures, JAMS. https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration; Rules 1, 3, 5, 6(c), 9, 11, 27, and 31.","Effective June 1, 2021; freshly read October 26, 2026.","Private rules; contract may choose another version or rule set. \nJAMS\n+5"],["S_NE-P15-S028","JAMS Arbitration Forms & Documents, JAMS. https://www.jamsadr.com/adr-forms.","Current public page freshly read October 26, 2026.","Sample private forms; JAMS directs users to contract and applicable law. \nJAMS"],["S_NE-P15-S029","Nebraska UETA—electronic assent gateway, Legislature. https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-632; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-634; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-636.","Current official codification freshly read October 26, 2026; consistent with reviewed PASS-13’s bounded relationship correction.","Electronic agreement, legal recognition, and attribution only; full E-SIGN/UETA dossier not repeated. \nNebraska Legislature\n+2"],["S_NE-P15-S030","Nebraska Judicial Branch Master Forms List and bounded official searches, https://nebraskajudicial.gov/forms; Nebraska appellate repository and official statutory searches for arbitration form, compel, stay, assignment, waiver, consumer arbitration, and 2025–2026 currentness.","Freshly checked October 26, 2026.","No standardized statewide Nebraska motion or petition to compel/stay arbitration located. Not a local-form, unpublished-order, trial-docket, or commercial-citator search. \nNebraska Judicial Branch"]]},{"headers":["Claim ID","Precise assertion","Source and pinpoint","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence"],"index":6,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Claim ID","Precise assertion","Source and pinpoint","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence"],["S_NE-P15-C001","Nebraska validates written postdispute arbitration agreements subject to general contract defenses.","S001, §25-2602.01(a).","All parties; formation/enforcement; high."],["S_NE-P15-C002","Nebraska validates written predispute clauses subject to general contract defenses when voluntarily and willingly entered.","S001, §25-2602.01(b).","State-UAA branch; FAA interaction fact-dependent; high for text."],["S_NE-P15-C003","Contract terms can generally vary UAA provisions except listed statutory exclusions.","S001, §25-2602.01(d)–(g).","Agreement interpretation; high."],["S_NE-P15-C004","Nebraska UAA exclusions are specific and do not generally exempt ordinary unsecured consumer debt.","S001, §25-2602.01(e)–(g).","Scope; high."],["S_NE-P15-C005","Standardized sole-remedy arbitration agreements require Nebraska’s capitalized/underlined adjoining-signature warning under state law.","S001, §25-2602.02.","Formation/enforcement; high."],["S_NE-P15-C006","FAA preempts §25-2602.02 for FAA-covered contracts.","S006, Aramark, pp.703–708/indices3–8.","Interstate-commerce contract; high."],["S_NE-P15-C007","Generally applicable contract defenses remain available under FAA §2.","S003, §2; S006.","Enforcement; high."],["S_NE-P15-C008","FAA applies only to written arbitration provisions in maritime or commerce-involving contracts.","S003, §§1–2.","Federal gateway; high."],["S_NE-P15-C009","Interstate-commerce scope is broad but not automatic.","S006; S009.","Court gateway; high."],["S_NE-P15-C010","FAA §1 transportation-worker exclusion is for court to decide before compulsion despite delegation.","S003, §1; S021.","Narrow employment gateway; high."],["S_NE-P15-C011","EFAA applicability is for court despite delegation and is a narrow sexual-assault/harassment branch.","S003, §§401–402.","Narrow federal exception; high."],["S_NE-P15-C012","Court first decides whether any arbitration agreement was formed.","S004, Cullinane, pp.223–225/indices13–15.","Formation; high."],["S_NE-P15-C013","A delegation clause cannot establish its own formation.","S004; S017.","Formation; high."],["S_NE-P15-C014","Court decides which conflicting contract governs despite an earlier delegation clause.","S017, Coinbase.","Contract selection; high."],["S_NE-P15-C015","Scope and enforceability are for court by default but can be delegated clearly and unmistakably.","S004, pp.224–225/indices14–15.","Gateway; high."],["S_NE-P15-C016","Delegation is a separate, severable antecedent arbitration agreement.","S004; S005.","Gateway; high."],["S_NE-P15-C017","A challenge specifically directed to delegation is decided by court.","S005, pp.565–568/indices20–23.","Gateway; high."],["S_NE-P15-C018","Whole-contract challenge ordinarily goes to arbitrator after valid formation and delegation.","S005; S018.","Merits/gateway; high with formation predicate."],["S_NE-P15-C019","No wholly-groundless exception permits court to bypass a valid delegation.","S018, Henry Schein.","Scope gateway; high."],["S_NE-P15-C020","Specific fraud in execution or inducement of arbitration clause remains judicial.","S004, pp.225–226/indices15–16.","Clause-specific challenge; high."],["S_NE-P15-C021","Electronic record or signature can satisfy writing/signature, but agreement and attribution must be proved.","S029, §§86-632, 86-634, 86-636.","Formation; high."],["S_NE-P15-C022","Clear incorporation by reference can include an arbitration provision.","S012, Frohberg.","Formation; high, document-specific."],["S_NE-P15-C023","Incorporation of AAA rules can constitute clear delegation on a sufficiently specific contract.","S015, Fallo.","Delegation; high for case, not universal."],["S_NE-P15-C024","Private AAA/JAMS rule text does not independently establish contract formation.","S004, S017, S024, S027.","Formation; high synthesis."],["S_NE-P15-C025","An assignee can receive arbitration rights only through an actual assignment and account connection.","S010.","Assignee/debt buyer; high, fact-dependent."],["S_NE-P15-C026","Generic ownership or servicing label does not prove entitlement to compel.","S010; general formation law.","Assignee/servicer; high bounded conclusion."],["S_NE-P15-C027","Nebraska recognizes six possible nonsignatory enforcement theories.","S010, pp.29–33/indices5–9.","Nonsignatory; high."],["S_NE-P15-C028","Equitable estoppel to bind nonsignatory is fact-intensive and requires more than incidental benefit.","S011.","Nonsignatory; high."],["S_NE-P15-C029","UAA application is made by motion; initial application served like summons unless agreed otherwise.","S001, §25-2617.","State procedure; high."],["S_NE-P15-C030","UAA “court” is Nebraska district court.","S001, §25-2618.","State jurisdiction; high."],["S_NE-P15-C031","If agreement existence is denied, court summarily determines formation.","S001, §25-2603(a)–(b).","State gateway; high."],["S_NE-P15-C032","A qualifying pending action or severable arbitrable issue is stayed under §25-2603(d).","S001, §25-2603(d).","State stay; high."],["S_NE-P15-C033","Private arbitration demand alone is not a court stay.","S001; S008.","Procedure; high."],["S_NE-P15-C034","State court can use Nebraska summary procedure even when FAA substantive law governs.","S004, pp.226–228/indices16–18.","State FAA case; high."],["S_NE-P15-C035","Exact UAA route for a debt suit already pending in county court remains unresolved because statutory “court” is district court.","S001, §§25-2603(c), 25-2618; bounded search.","Procedure; partial/HOLD."],["S_NE-P15-C036","FAA §4 requires independent federal jurisdiction and provides federal compulsion procedure.","S003, §4.","Federal court; high."],["S_NE-P15-C037","Federal court must stay on request when §3 predicates are met.","S003, §3; S019.","Federal court; high."],["S_NE-P15-C038","Federal court cannot dismiss solely because all claims are arbitrable when a §3 stay is requested.","S019, Smith.","Federal court; high."],["S_NE-P15-C039","Motion to compel is not listed among Nebraska Rule 12 motions that automatically alter answer deadline.","S002, §6-1112.","State pleading; high."],["S_NE-P15-C040","Arbitration and waiver should be preserved as affirmative defenses.","S002, §6-1108(c).","Pleading; high."],["S_NE-P15-C041","Court can extend rule deadlines only through applicable good-cause/excusable-neglect procedure; statutory deadlines need statutory authority.","S002, §6-1106.","Procedure; high."],["S_NE-P15-C042","Arbitration provisions are not self-executing and court cannot compel sua sponte for noninvoking parties.","S008, Boyd.","Procedure; high."],["S_NE-P15-C043","Litigation-conduct waiver does not require prejudice after Morgan/Kingery.","S007; S020.","Waiver; high."],["S_NE-P15-C044","Court generally decides litigation-conduct waiver.","S007.","Waiver; high."],["S_NE-P15-C045","Litigation-conduct waiver can be claim-specific.","S016, Lackie.","Waiver; high."],["S_NE-P15-C046","Voluntary merits participation in arbitration without objection can waive later arbitrability challenge.","S009, Garlock.","Arbitral participation; high."],["S_NE-P15-C047","Clear, explicit objection before merits can preserve later judicial challenge.","S009.","Arbitral participation; high."],["S_NE-P15-C048","AAA and JAMS rule-waiver provisions govern private rule objections, not formation by themselves.","S024 R-39; S027 Rule 27.","Arbitration procedure; high."],["S_NE-P15-C049","AAA can administratively suspend for judicial intervention under R-2, but that is not a court stay.","S024 R-2.","Administrator procedure; high."],["S_NE-P15-C050","AAA Registry review is administrative and not a legal enforceability opinion.","S024 R-12.","Administrator status; high."],["S_NE-P15-C051","AAA/JAMS nonpayment can suspend or terminate administration but creates no universal Nebraska merits consequence.","S024 R-55/R-56; S027 Rules 6/31.","Nonpayment; high private-rule text, legal consequence held."],["S_NE-P15-C052","JAMS current consumer standard generally limits initiating consumer payment to $250 and places remaining costs on company.","S026 Standard 7.","Qualifying JAMS consumer case; high private policy."],["S_NE-P15-C053","No current AAA numerical fee was adopted in this report; current schedule must be checked.","S025.","Cost analysis; high methodological limit."],["S_NE-P15-C054","CROA does not categorically prohibit arbitration.","S022, CompuCredit.","Covered CROA claim; high."],["S_NE-P15-C055","Arbitration does not automatically waive statutory remedies.","S022; S026 Standard 3.","Statutory claim; high bounded conclusion."],["S_NE-P15-C056","Ambiguity does not authorize class arbitration; affirmative contractual basis is required.","S023, Lamps Plus.","Class arbitration; high."],["S_NE-P15-C057","FAA §16 generally allows immediate appeal from denial but not interlocutory grant of compulsion/stay.","S003, §16.","Federal appeal; high."],["S_NE-P15-C058","Nebraska §25-2620 expressly permits listed arbitration appeals; silent orders may require general final-order analysis.","S001, §25-2620; S005/S007.","State appeal; high."],["S_NE-P15-C059","Choice-of-law clause is relevant but does not automatically displace FAA or select every arbitration procedure.","S014; S006.","Contract interpretation; high."],["S_NE-P15-C060","No standardized statewide Nebraska compel/stay arbitration form was located.","S030.","Forms; bounded negative finding."],["S_NE-P15-C061","No universal Nebraska rule was located that an arbitration demand tolls a limitation period.","S024–S027; bounded search.","Timing; HOLD."],["S_NE-P15-C062","Full award confirmation, vacatur, modification, and enforcement remain outside this pass.","Scope boundary.","Expressly open."]]},{"headers":["Assigned question","Status","Claim IDs","Exact missing evidence or next action"],"index":7,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Assigned question","Status","Claim IDs","Exact missing evidence or next action"],["Nebraska UAA validity","Answered","C001–C004","Actual agreement and transaction"],["Nebraska special notice","Answered with FAA qualification","C005–C006","FAA commerce determination"],["FAA commerce","Answered as rule; fact-specific application held","C008–C009","Actual contracting and transaction facts"],["FAA transportation-worker exclusion","Answered as narrow gateway","C010","Actual work and commerce facts"],["EFAA exception","Answered as narrow gateway","C011","Actual alleged dispute and accrual"],["Insurance exception","Answered only as boundary","C004","Actual insurance relationship; excluded ordinary-debt merits"],["Choice of law","Answered generally","C059","Actual clause, selected state, contacts, scope"],["Written/electronic agreement","Answered generally","C021","Complete record, consent, attribution"],["Consumer assent","Answered as judicial formation issue","C012–C014","Actual notice, signature, use, opt-out"],["Original creditor enforcement","Answered generally","C012, C015","Operative contract and account linkage"],["Assignee/debt buyer enforcement","Answered conditionally","C025–C026","Assignment chain, account schedule, clause transfer"],["Servicer enforcement","Partial","C026–C028","Servicing/agency agreement and clause scope"],["Trustee enforcement","Partial","C027","Trust instrument and account ownership"],["Affiliate enforcement","Partial","C027–C028","Agency, alter ego, estoppel, beneficiary facts"],["Nonsignatory theories","Answered","C027–C028","Actual doctrine-specific facts"],["Conflicting contracts","Answered","C014","Complete contracts and sequence"],["Incorporation by reference","Answered generally","C022–C024","Exact reference, version, availability"],["Incorporation of AAA/JAMS rules","Answered conditionally","C023–C024","Actual clause and selected rule set"],["Court decides formation","Answered","C012–C014","Formation evidence"],["Court decides clause/delegation challenge","Answered","C017, C020","Specific challenge language"],["Whole-contract challenge","Answered conditionally","C018","Valid formation and delegation"],["Wholly-groundless exception","Answered as unavailable","C019","Valid delegation predicate"],["Nebraska UAA motion/service","Answered","C029–C031","Actual application and service"],["Nebraska UAA venue","Answered","S001","Contract hearing location and adverse-party residence"],["Nebraska state stay","Answered","C032–C033","Qualifying application or order"],["County-court coordination","Unresolved","C035","Controlling case, local order, or procedural authority"],["Federal §4 proceeding","Answered","C036","Independent federal jurisdiction"],["Federal §3 stay","Answered","C037–C038","Agreement, arbitrable issue, no default, stay request"],["State answer deadline during compel dispute","Answered as no automatic extension","C039–C041","Actual stay, extension, stipulation"],["Sua sponte arbitration","Answered as improper generally","C042","Party invocation"],["Fraud/duress/unconscionability","Answered as general-defense framework","C007, C017–C020","Actual clause and factual record"],["Nebraska “voluntarily and willingly” condition under FAA","Partial","C002, C006–C007","Controlling case applying subsection (b) under FAA"],["Statutory-remedy nonwaiver","Answered narrowly","C054–C055","Actual statute and clause"],["CROA arbitration","Answered as not categorically barred","C054","Actual CROA coverage and remedy language"],["Class arbitration","Answered","C056","Actual affirmative contractual basis"],["Class-action waiver","Partial/excluded","—","Actual clause and statutory claim"],["Jury waiver","Partial","S003/S004","Actual formation dispute and preserved jury demand"],["Litigation-conduct waiver","Answered","C043–C045","Complete docket and claim chronology"],["Participation waiver","Answered","C046–C048","Actual arbitral objection and hearing record"],["Nonpayment waiver/default","Unresolved beyond private rules","C051","Actual notices, contract, administrator action, case authority"],["AAA rule version","Answered current version; contract application partial","C023–C024, C049–C053","Actual contract’s version language"],["JAMS rule version","Answered current version; contract application partial","C024, C051–C052","Actual contract and consumer classification"],["Administrator fee allocation","Answered only for current JAMS standard; AAA held","C052–C053","Current case-specific schedule and hardship rules"],["Administrator clause registry","Answered as administrative only","C050","Actual registered clause and current status"],["Small-claims option in private rules","Answered privately; Nebraska eligibility held","S024","Actual Nebraska Small Claims Court predicates"],["Appeal from denial or grant","Answered as gateway boundary","C057–C058","Exact order and finality"],["Award confirmation/vacatur/modification","Excluded/later","C062","Separate award-review pass"],["Arbitration limitations tolling","Not established","C061","Actual clause, filing date, applicable limitation law"],["Full arbitration discovery","Excluded","—","Administrator rule, order, and substantive evidence needs"],["Substantive debt standing/evidence","Excluded except assignment gateway","—","PASS-14 review and later work"],["Service/default/vacatur","Excluded except stay/response crossover","—","PASS-12 review and later work"],["Provider licensing/remedies","Excluded except CROA gateway","—","Reviewed provider passes and later work"],["Secured, medical, government, tax, support, education sectors","Excluded","—","Sector-specific passes"],["Local/tribal/country rules","Excluded","—","Separate jurisdictional work"],["Named agreement or account result","Not performed","—","Actual private contract, account, notices, assignment, docket"],["Component/state/parent/A066 acceptance","Not granted","—","Remaining registry components and scoped review"]]}],"claims":[{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C001","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C001","Precise assertion":"Nebraska validates written postdispute arbitration agreements subject to general contract defenses.","Source and pinpoint":"S001, §25-2602.01(a).","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"All parties; formation/enforcement; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C002","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C002","Precise assertion":"Nebraska validates written predispute clauses subject to general contract defenses when voluntarily and willingly entered.","Source and pinpoint":"S001, §25-2602.01(b).","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"State-UAA branch; FAA interaction fact-dependent; high for text."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C003","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C003","Precise assertion":"Contract terms can generally vary UAA provisions except listed statutory exclusions.","Source and pinpoint":"S001, §25-2602.01(d)–(g).","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Agreement interpretation; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C004","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C004","Precise assertion":"Nebraska UAA exclusions are specific and do not generally exempt ordinary unsecured consumer debt.","Source and pinpoint":"S001, §25-2602.01(e)–(g).","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Scope; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C005","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C005","Precise assertion":"Standardized sole-remedy arbitration agreements require Nebraska’s capitalized/underlined adjoining-signature warning under state law.","Source and pinpoint":"S001, §25-2602.02.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Formation/enforcement; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C006","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C006","Precise assertion":"FAA preempts §25-2602.02 for FAA-covered contracts.","Source and pinpoint":"S006, Aramark, pp.703–708/indices3–8.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Interstate-commerce contract; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C007","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C007","Precise assertion":"Generally applicable contract defenses remain available under FAA §2.","Source and pinpoint":"S003, §2; S006.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Enforcement; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C008","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C008","Precise assertion":"FAA applies only to written arbitration provisions in maritime or commerce-involving contracts.","Source and pinpoint":"S003, §§1–2.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Federal gateway; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C009","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C009","Precise assertion":"Interstate-commerce scope is broad but not automatic.","Source and pinpoint":"S006; S009.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Court gateway; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C010","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C010","Precise assertion":"FAA §1 transportation-worker exclusion is for court to decide before compulsion despite delegation.","Source and pinpoint":"S003, §1; S021.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Narrow employment gateway; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C011","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C011","Precise assertion":"EFAA applicability is for court despite delegation and is a narrow sexual-assault/harassment branch.","Source and pinpoint":"S003, §§401–402.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Narrow federal exception; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C012","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C012","Precise assertion":"Court first decides whether any arbitration agreement was formed.","Source and pinpoint":"S004, Cullinane, pp.223–225/indices13–15.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Formation; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C013","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C013","Precise assertion":"A delegation clause cannot establish its own formation.","Source and pinpoint":"S004; S017.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Formation; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C014","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C014","Precise assertion":"Court decides which conflicting contract governs despite an earlier delegation clause.","Source and pinpoint":"S017, Coinbase.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Contract selection; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C015","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C015","Precise assertion":"Scope and enforceability are for court by default but can be delegated clearly and unmistakably.","Source and pinpoint":"S004, pp.224–225/indices14–15.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Gateway; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C016","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C016","Precise assertion":"Delegation is a separate, severable antecedent arbitration agreement.","Source and pinpoint":"S004; S005.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Gateway; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C017","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C017","Precise assertion":"A challenge specifically directed to delegation is decided by court.","Source and pinpoint":"S005, pp.565–568/indices20–23.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Gateway; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C018","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C018","Precise assertion":"Whole-contract challenge ordinarily goes to arbitrator after valid formation and delegation.","Source and pinpoint":"S005; S018.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Merits/gateway; high with formation predicate."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C019","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C019","Precise assertion":"No wholly-groundless exception permits court to bypass a valid delegation.","Source and pinpoint":"S018, Henry Schein.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Scope gateway; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C020","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C020","Precise assertion":"Specific fraud in execution or inducement of arbitration clause remains judicial.","Source and pinpoint":"S004, pp.225–226/indices15–16.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Clause-specific challenge; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C021","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C021","Precise assertion":"Electronic record or signature can satisfy writing/signature, but agreement and attribution must be proved.","Source and pinpoint":"S029, §§86-632, 86-634, 86-636.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Formation; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C022","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C022","Precise assertion":"Clear incorporation by reference can include an arbitration provision.","Source and pinpoint":"S012, Frohberg.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Formation; high, document-specific."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C023","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C023","Precise assertion":"Incorporation of AAA rules can constitute clear delegation on a sufficiently specific contract.","Source and pinpoint":"S015, Fallo.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Delegation; high for case, not universal."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C024","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C024","Precise assertion":"Private AAA/JAMS rule text does not independently establish contract formation.","Source and pinpoint":"S004, S017, S024, S027.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Formation; high synthesis."},"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q003"],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C025","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C025","Precise assertion":"An assignee can receive arbitration rights only through an actual assignment and account connection.","Source and pinpoint":"S010.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Assignee/debt buyer; high, fact-dependent."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C026","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C026","Precise assertion":"Generic ownership or servicing label does not prove entitlement to compel.","Source and pinpoint":"S010; general formation law.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Assignee/servicer; high bounded conclusion."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C027","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C027","Precise assertion":"Nebraska recognizes six possible nonsignatory enforcement theories.","Source and pinpoint":"S010, pp.29–33/indices5–9.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Nonsignatory; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C028","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C028","Precise assertion":"Equitable estoppel to bind nonsignatory is fact-intensive and requires more than incidental benefit.","Source and pinpoint":"S011.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Nonsignatory; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C029","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C029","Precise assertion":"UAA application is made by motion; initial application served like summons unless agreed otherwise.","Source and pinpoint":"S001, §25-2617.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"State procedure; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C030","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C030","Precise assertion":"UAA “court” is Nebraska district court.","Source and pinpoint":"S001, §25-2618.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"State jurisdiction; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C031","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C031","Precise assertion":"If agreement existence is denied, court summarily determines formation.","Source and pinpoint":"S001, §25-2603(a)–(b).","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"State gateway; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C032","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C032","Precise assertion":"A qualifying pending action or severable arbitrable issue is stayed under §25-2603(d).","Source and pinpoint":"S001, §25-2603(d).","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"State stay; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C033","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C033","Precise assertion":"Private arbitration demand alone is not a court stay.","Source and pinpoint":"S001; S008.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Procedure; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C034","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C034","Precise assertion":"State court can use Nebraska summary procedure even when FAA substantive law governs.","Source and pinpoint":"S004, pp.226–228/indices16–18.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"State FAA case; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C035","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C035","Precise assertion":"Exact UAA route for a debt suit already pending in county court remains unresolved because statutory “court” is district court.","Source and pinpoint":"S001, §§25-2603(c), 25-2618; bounded search.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Procedure; partial/HOLD."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C036","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C036","Precise assertion":"FAA §4 requires independent federal jurisdiction and provides federal compulsion procedure.","Source and pinpoint":"S003, §4.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Federal court; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q001"],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C037","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C037","Precise assertion":"Federal court must stay on request when §3 predicates are met.","Source and pinpoint":"S003, §3; S019.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Federal court; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C038","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C038","Precise assertion":"Federal court cannot dismiss solely because all claims are arbitrable when a §3 stay is requested.","Source and pinpoint":"S019, Smith.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Federal court; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C039","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C039","Precise assertion":"Motion to compel is not listed among Nebraska Rule 12 motions that automatically alter answer deadline.","Source and pinpoint":"S002, §6-1112.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"State pleading; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C040","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C040","Precise assertion":"Arbitration and waiver should be preserved as affirmative defenses.","Source and pinpoint":"S002, §6-1108(c).","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Pleading; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"current_rule_access_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C041","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C041","Precise assertion":"Court can extend rule deadlines only through applicable good-cause/excusable-neglect procedure; statutory deadlines need statutory authority.","Source and pinpoint":"S002, §6-1106.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Procedure; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"current_rule_access_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C042","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C042","Precise assertion":"Arbitration provisions are not self-executing and court cannot compel sua sponte for noninvoking parties.","Source and pinpoint":"S008, Boyd.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Procedure; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C043","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C043","Precise assertion":"Litigation-conduct waiver does not require prejudice after Morgan/Kingery.","Source and pinpoint":"S007; S020.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Waiver; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C044","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C044","Precise assertion":"Court generally decides litigation-conduct waiver.","Source and pinpoint":"S007.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Waiver; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C045","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C045","Precise assertion":"Litigation-conduct waiver can be claim-specific.","Source and pinpoint":"S016, Lackie.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Waiver; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C046","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C046","Precise assertion":"Voluntary merits participation in arbitration without objection can waive later arbitrability challenge.","Source and pinpoint":"S009, Garlock.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Arbitral participation; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q003"],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C047","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C047","Precise assertion":"Clear, explicit objection before merits can preserve later judicial challenge.","Source and pinpoint":"S009.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Arbitral participation; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q003"],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C048","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C048","Precise assertion":"AAA and JAMS rule-waiver provisions govern private rule objections, not formation by themselves.","Source and pinpoint":"S024 R-39; S027 Rule 27.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Arbitration procedure; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"bounded_correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q003"],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C049","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C049","Precise assertion":"AAA can administratively suspend for judicial intervention under R-2, but that is not a court stay.","Source and pinpoint":"S024 R-2.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Administrator procedure; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C050","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C050","Precise assertion":"AAA Registry review is administrative and not a legal enforceability opinion.","Source and pinpoint":"S024 R-12.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Administrator status; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C051","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C051","Precise assertion":"AAA/JAMS nonpayment can suspend or terminate administration but creates no universal Nebraska merits consequence.","Source and pinpoint":"S024 R-55/R-56; S027 Rules 6/31.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Nonpayment; high private-rule text, legal consequence held."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C052","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C052","Precise assertion":"JAMS current consumer standard generally limits initiating consumer payment to $250 and places remaining costs on company.","Source and pinpoint":"S026 Standard 7.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Qualifying JAMS consumer case; high private policy."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C053","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C053","Precise assertion":"No current AAA numerical fee was adopted in this report; current schedule must be checked.","Source and pinpoint":"S025.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Cost analysis; high methodological limit."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C054","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C054","Precise assertion":"CROA does not categorically prohibit arbitration.","Source and pinpoint":"S022, CompuCredit.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Covered CROA claim; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C055","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C055","Precise assertion":"Arbitration does not automatically waive statutory remedies.","Source and pinpoint":"S022; S026 Standard 3.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Statutory claim; high bounded conclusion."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C056","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C056","Precise assertion":"Ambiguity does not authorize class arbitration; affirmative contractual basis is required.","Source and pinpoint":"S023, Lamps Plus.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Class arbitration; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C057","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C057","Precise assertion":"FAA §16 generally allows immediate appeal from denial but not interlocutory grant of compulsion/stay.","Source and pinpoint":"S003, §16.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Federal appeal; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C058","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C058","Precise assertion":"Nebraska §25-2620 expressly permits listed arbitration appeals; silent orders may require general final-order analysis.","Source and pinpoint":"S001, §25-2620; S005/S007.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"State appeal; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C059","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C059","Precise assertion":"Choice-of-law clause is relevant but does not automatically displace FAA or select every arbitration procedure.","Source and pinpoint":"S014; S006.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Contract interpretation; high."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C060","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C060","Precise assertion":"No standardized statewide Nebraska compel/stay arbitration form was located.","Source and pinpoint":"S030.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Forms; bounded negative finding."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C061","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C061","Precise assertion":"No universal Nebraska rule was located that an arbitration demand tolls a limitation period.","Source and pinpoint":"S024–S027; bounded search.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Timing; HOLD."},"coordinator_verification_status":"case_or_negative_search_hold_retained","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}},{"claim_id":"S_NE-P15-C062","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"Claim ID":"S_NE-P15-C062","Precise assertion":"Full award confirmation, vacatur, modification, and enforcement remain outside this pass.","Source and pinpoint":"Scope boundary.","Actor, stage, conditions, consequence, confidence":"Expressly open."},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_text_or_synthesis_checked_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","material_findings":[],"actual_application_accepted":false,"case_primary_freshly_checked":false,"scope":"Exact source read map controls; two selected dated case texts are reuse, not full/current judicial acceptance."}}],"sources":[{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","urls":["https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.01","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.02","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2603","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2604","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2604.01","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2606","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2607","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2608","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2609","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2617","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2618","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2619","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2620","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2621"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S001","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act, Nebraska Legislature. https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.01 subsections (a)–(g); https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.02 complete section; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2603 subsections (a)–(e); https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2604; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2604.01; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2606; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2607; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2608; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2609; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2617; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2618; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2619; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2620; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2621.","Version/status and actual access":"Current official codification freshly read October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC. No complete enactment-history audit.","Read bounds and limits":"State validity, exclusions, special warning, compel/stay, court, venue, appeal, hearing, counsel, subpoena, and award boundaries. Award confirmation/vacatur provisions not analyzed in full. \nNebraska Legislature\n+13"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_primary_or_explicit_dated_reuse_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.01","body":"25-2602.01","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,35]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"5753499db5312f1e1dd42b2949198607a9a6cc73eb1c5e5912fdd31a744ad055"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2602.02","body":"25-2602.02","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,19]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"5753499db5312f1e1dd42b2949198607a9a6cc73eb1c5e5912fdd31a744ad055"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2603","body":"25-2603","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,23]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"5753499db5312f1e1dd42b2949198607a9a6cc73eb1c5e5912fdd31a744ad055"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2604","body":"25-2604","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[18,19]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"5753499db5312f1e1dd42b2949198607a9a6cc73eb1c5e5912fdd31a744ad055"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2604.01","body":"25-2604.01","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[18,18]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"871df9ed12ef7d215800fda9d95f9c54d447020526ba75f979e29055d1193203"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2606","body":"25-2606","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,26]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"871df9ed12ef7d215800fda9d95f9c54d447020526ba75f979e29055d1193203"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2607","body":"25-2607","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,19]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"871df9ed12ef7d215800fda9d95f9c54d447020526ba75f979e29055d1193203"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2608","body":"25-2608","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,24]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"871df9ed12ef7d215800fda9d95f9c54d447020526ba75f979e29055d1193203"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2609","body":"25-2609","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,20]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"55302dcaffb7588e053fb76b3df0b22be0097ce7a008c8e52e609939fb829267"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2617","body":"25-2617","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,19]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"55302dcaffb7588e053fb76b3df0b22be0097ce7a008c8e52e609939fb829267"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2618","body":"25-2618","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,20]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"55302dcaffb7588e053fb76b3df0b22be0097ce7a008c8e52e609939fb829267"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2619","body":"25-2619","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[18,19]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"55302dcaffb7588e053fb76b3df0b22be0097ce7a008c8e52e609939fb829267"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2620","body":"25-2620","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,32]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"18c4f544dd903be3b655a19414d6b396e227490802c8a4cd656cede26d4788cd"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2621","body":"25-2621","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[20,20]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"18c4f544dd903be3b655a19414d6b396e227490802c8a4cd656cede26d4788cd"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-403.01","body":"25-403.01","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[18,20]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"b30dadf841ae0c9741ed30e808dd53a7fef09de91ff8c45131420691b8a652a1"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2618.01","body":"25-2618.01","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,32]],"scope":"Complete operative body read. Source histories and selected official annotations returned; no underlying opinion, complete enrolled-act chain, court application or later treatment is established merely by this codified page. Additional2618.01and403.01 verify narrow omitted gateway/crossreference, not a new state dossier.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"b30dadf841ae0c9741ed30e808dd53a7fef09de91ff8c45131420691b8a652a1"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2803","body":"25-2803","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,29]],"scope":"Complete operative body explicitly reused from dated NE12. Transaction-party/assigned-claim/representation limits and express2618.01transfer exception retained. No actual SmallClaims eligibility, amount, party, transfer or appeal decided.","access_kind":"dated_saved_primary_reuse","packet_sha256":"382c3436a277beb5115dfe61a147350c7e6de6eb6f5a8d0edbadd5e3f8747026","prior_review":"[internal evidence reference]","prior_review_completed_at":"2026-10-29T03:11:21.175166+00:00"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S001","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2805","body":"25-2805","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[18,20]],"scope":"Complete operative body explicitly reused from dated NE12. Transaction-party/assigned-claim/representation limits and express2618.01transfer exception retained. No actual SmallClaims eligibility, amount, party, transfer or appeal decided.","access_kind":"dated_saved_primary_reuse","packet_sha256":"382c3436a277beb5115dfe61a147350c7e6de6eb6f5a8d0edbadd5e3f8747026","prior_review":"[internal evidence reference]","prior_review_completed_at":"2026-10-29T03:11:21.175166+00:00"}],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q002","S_NE-P15-Q004","S_NE-P15-Q005"],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S002","urls":["https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases-effective-january-1-2025/%C2%A7-6-1112-defenses-and-objections-when-and-how-presented-pleading-or-motion-motion-judgment-pleadings","https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases/%C2%A7-6-1106-time","https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases-effective-january-1-2025/%C2%A7-6-1108-general-rules-pleading"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S002","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Nebraska civil pleading and timing rules, Judicial Branch. https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases-effective-january-1-2025/%C2%A7-6-1112-defenses-and-objections-when-and-how-presented-pleading-or-motion-motion-judgment-pleadings; https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases/%C2%A7-6-1106-time; https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases-effective-january-1-2025/%C2%A7-6-1108-general-rules-pleading.","Version/status and actual access":"Current rules freshly read October 26, 2026; principal 2024 amendments effective January 1, 2025.","Read bounds and limits":"Answer timing, Rule 12 effects, extensions, arbitration and waiver as affirmative defenses. \nNebraska Judicial Branch\n+2"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_primary_or_explicit_dated_reuse_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S002","url":"https://nebraskajudicial.gov/supreme-court-rules/chapter-6-trial-courts/article-11-nebraska-court-rules-pleading-civil-cases-effective-january-1-2025/%C2%A7-6-1112-defenses-and-objections-when-and-how-presented-pleading-or-motion-motion-judgment-pleadings","body":"6-1112","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[28,117]],"scope":"Complete operative rule/comments/history explicitly reread from dated NE12 source packet, not fresh NE15 fetch. Rule(a)30day/21day and motions enumerated; page includes September3,2025amendment. Underlying cases in comments not reopened; no actual court extension.","access_kind":"dated_saved_primary_reuse","packet_sha256":"2db14f8d1595b9dedd1c4dd48b08752a75e04fa746bb68d188320a0f80d8991c","prior_review":"[internal evidence reference]","prior_review_completed_at":"2026-10-29T03:11:21.175166+00:00"}],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S003","urls":["https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s1/","https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s2/","https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s3/","https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/","https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s5/","https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s6/","https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s16/","https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s401/","https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s402/"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S003","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Federal Arbitration Act, Office of Law Revision Counsel. https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s1/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s2/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s3/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s5/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s6/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s16/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s401/; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s402/.","Version/status and actual access":"Each page displays laws in effect through Public Law 119-124, October 15, 2026; freshly read October 26.","Read bounds and limits":"Commerce, written-agreement rule, stay, federal compulsion, appointment, motion procedure, appeals, transportation-worker exclusion, and EFAA gateway. \nU.S. Code\n+8"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_primary_or_explicit_dated_reuse_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S003","url":"https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s1/","body":"9USC1","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[20,22]],"scope":"Complete operative section/source credit;401/402include supplied2022effective-date notes. Actual header is PL119-124October15,2026, not inferred from URL alone. No full amendment history or judicial application accepted.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"c346095ead0628de1d29e2003a0dfab616dc309d8f5185ddfb32e7258e906872"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S003","url":"https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s2/","body":"9USC2","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,21]],"scope":"Complete operative section/source credit;401/402include supplied2022effective-date notes. Actual header is PL119-124October15,2026, not inferred from URL alone. No full amendment history or judicial application accepted.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"c346095ead0628de1d29e2003a0dfab616dc309d8f5185ddfb32e7258e906872"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S003","url":"https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s3/","body":"9USC3","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[20,22]],"scope":"Complete operative section/source credit;401/402include supplied2022effective-date notes. Actual header is PL119-124October15,2026, not inferred from URL alone. No full amendment history or judicial application accepted.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"c346095ead0628de1d29e2003a0dfab616dc309d8f5185ddfb32e7258e906872"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S003","url":"https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/","body":"9USC4","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,25]],"scope":"Complete operative section/source credit;401/402include supplied2022effective-date notes. Actual header is PL119-124October15,2026, not inferred from URL alone. No full amendment history or judicial application accepted.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"c346095ead0628de1d29e2003a0dfab616dc309d8f5185ddfb32e7258e906872"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S003","url":"https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s5/","body":"9USC5","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[20,22]],"scope":"Complete operative section/source credit;401/402include supplied2022effective-date notes. Actual header is PL119-124October15,2026, not inferred from URL alone. No full amendment history or judicial application accepted.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"bbc7b424b6a9d4d816749b20bf5f772b4ab2f09abea4b4fdae4a4f8363080b8c"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S003","url":"https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s6/","body":"9USC6","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[20,24]],"scope":"Complete operative section/source credit;401/402include supplied2022effective-date notes. Actual header is PL119-124October15,2026, not inferred from URL alone. No full amendment history or judicial application accepted.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"bbc7b424b6a9d4d816749b20bf5f772b4ab2f09abea4b4fdae4a4f8363080b8c"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S003","url":"https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s16/","body":"9USC16","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[20,48]],"scope":"Complete operative section/source credit;401/402include supplied2022effective-date notes. Actual header is PL119-124October15,2026, not inferred from URL alone. No full amendment history or judicial application accepted.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"bbc7b424b6a9d4d816749b20bf5f772b4ab2f09abea4b4fdae4a4f8363080b8c"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S003","url":"https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s401/","body":"9USC401","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[20,36]],"scope":"Complete operative section/source credit;401/402include supplied2022effective-date notes. Actual header is PL119-124October15,2026, not inferred from URL alone. No full amendment history or judicial application accepted.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"bbc7b424b6a9d4d816749b20bf5f772b4ab2f09abea4b4fdae4a4f8363080b8c"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S003","url":"https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s402/","body":"9USC402","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[20,29]],"scope":"Complete operative section/source credit;401/402include supplied2022effective-date notes. Actual header is PL119-124October15,2026, not inferred from URL alone. No full amendment history or judicial application accepted.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"6bfaea386c6f1c4cdbb4b742e5d822f61df9ddf9b4fa29d28077f7ec19140088"}],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q001","S_NE-P15-Q004"],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S004","urls":["https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S004","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Cullinane v. Beverly Enterprises–Nebraska, 300 Neb. 210, 912 N.W.2d 774 (2018), Nebraska Supreme Court. https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010613PUB; printed pp. 223–228, zero-based PDF indices 13–18.","Version/status and actual access":"Final published opinion, freshly read and visually checked October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Formation-first analysis, delegation, clause-specific challenge, Nebraska state procedure under FAA. \nNebraska.gov\n+2"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S005","urls":["https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010566PUB"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S005","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., 299 Neb. 545, 909 N.W.2d 614 (2018). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010566PUB; printed pp. 558–568, zero-based indices 13–23, particularly pp. 565–568/indices 20–23.","Version/status and actual access":"Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Specific delegation challenge and insurance exception; insurance merits not generalized to ordinary debt. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S006","urls":["https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00000319PUB"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S006","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. v. Hunan, Inc., 276 Neb. 700, 757 N.W.2d 205 (2008). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00000319PUB; printed pp. 703–708, zero-based PDF indices 3–8.","Version/status and actual access":"Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion. Holding was boundedly reused from reviewed PASS-06/PASS-13 and freshly rechecked October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"FAA commerce and preemption of §25-2602.02; does not decide every state contract defense. \nNebraska.gov\n+2"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_primary_or_explicit_dated_reuse_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S006","url":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00000319PUB","body":"Aramark selected factual posture","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[31,54]],"scope":"Dated NE6 saved official PDF text only: interstate uniform-service posture and lower ruling/reversal summary. Not a new case query, full opinion read, pixel or later-treatment audit; actual award amount not a new financial scenario and not recomputed.","access_kind":"dated_saved_primary_reuse","packet_sha256":"62bbf376ec9e537aae0129f7f0f9794641e888e4ff1496710187c5da3c934cee","prior_review":"[internal evidence reference]","prior_review_completed_at":"2026-10-26T10:25:51.644160+00:00"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S006","url":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00000319PUB","body":"Aramark selected conclusion","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[278,284]],"scope":"Dated NE6 conclusion at PDF8, printed708as earlier review attributes; special notice preemption for this commerce contract and confirmation remand only. Other printed/index range descriptions remain unverified without pixels; not a new full holding/history check.","access_kind":"dated_saved_primary_reuse","packet_sha256":"53f451e2146a7c3bc4b88e347c1f19887bc87b7e0e6d306b2d2e7fcae649bd7c","prior_review":"[internal evidence reference]","prior_review_completed_at":"2026-10-26T10:25:51.644160+00:00"}],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S007","urls":["https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008874PUB"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S007","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Kingery Construction Co. v. 6135 O Street Car Wash, LLC, 312 Neb. 502 (2022). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008874PUB; printed pp. 508–516, zero-based indices 6–14.","Version/status and actual access":"Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Litigation-conduct waiver; prejudice requirement overruled; court ordinarily decides waiver. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S008","urls":["https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010454PUB"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S008","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Boyd v. Cook, 298 Neb. 819, 906 N.W.2d 31 (2018). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010454PUB; printed pp. 827–833, zero-based indices 8–14.","Version/status and actual access":"Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Arbitration right is contractual and not self-executing; court should not invoke for parties. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S009","urls":["https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00011615PUB"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S009","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Garlock v. 3DS Properties, L.L.C., 303 Neb. 521, 930 N.W.2d 503 (2019). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00011615PUB; printed pp. 529–534, zero-based indices 8–13.","Version/status and actual access":"Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"FAA commerce not automatic; participation waiver and preservation by explicit objection. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S010","urls":["https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S010","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"EAD Engineering, Inc. v. Purac America Inc., 34 Neb. App. 24 (2026). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012959PUB; printed pp. 29–33, zero-based indices 5–9.","Version/status and actual access":"Final published Nebraska Court of Appeals opinion filed January 27, 2026; freshly read October 26.","Read bounds and limits":"Formation, assignment, nonsignatory theories, incorporation, agency remand. \nNebraska.gov\n+2"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S011","urls":["https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008378PUB"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S011","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Noah’s Ark Processors, LLC v. UniFirst Corp., 310 Neb. 896 (2022). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00008378PUB; printed pp. 899–906, zero-based indices 3–10.","Version/status and actual access":"Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Fact-specific nonsignatory equitable estoppel; old prejudice discussion qualified by Morgan/Kingery. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S012","urls":["https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010299PUB"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S012","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Frohberg Electric Co. v. Grossenburg Implement, Inc., 297 Neb. 356, 900 N.W.2d 32 (2017). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00010299PUB; printed pp. 363–365, zero-based indices 7–9.","Version/status and actual access":"Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Incorporation by reference and state-law formation. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S013","urls":["https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00011157PUB"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S013","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Heard v. Silvus, 33 Neb. App. 20, 9 N.W.3d 462 (2024). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00011157PUB; printed pp. 27–29, zero-based indices 7–9.","Version/status and actual access":"Final published Nebraska Court of Appeals opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Statutory disclosure claim outside clause scope; UAA application requirements. \nNebraska.gov"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S014","urls":["https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00003683PUB"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S014","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"American National Bank v. Medved, 281 Neb. 799, 801 N.W.2d 230 (2011). https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00003683PUB; printed pp. 804–806, zero-based indices 5–7.","Version/status and actual access":"Final published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Choice-of-law framework only. \nNebraska.gov\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S015","urls":["https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/09/03/082437P.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S015","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Fallo v. High-Tech Institute, 559 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2009). https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/09/03/082437P.pdf; slip pp. 3–5, zero-based indices 2–4.","Version/status and actual access":"Final published Eighth Circuit opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Specific AAA incorporation as delegation; Missouri-law merits not treated as Nebraska law. \nU.S. Court of Appeals"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S016","urls":["https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/07/241231P.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S016","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Lackie Drug Store, Inc. v. OptumRx, Inc., No. 24-1231 (8th Cir. July 16, 2025). https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/07/241231P.pdf; slip pp. 6, 9, and 13, zero-based indices 5, 8, and 12.","Version/status and actual access":"Final published Eighth Circuit opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Claim-specific litigation waiver after substantial litigation. \nU.S. Court of Appeals\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S017","urls":["https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S017","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143 (2024). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf; slip pp. 4–8, zero-based indices 3–7.","Version/status and actual access":"Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Court decides which conflicting contract governs despite earlier delegation. \nSupreme Court\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S018","urls":["https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S018","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63 (2019). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf; slip pp. 4–6, zero-based indices 3–5.","Version/status and actual access":"Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"No wholly-groundless exception after valid delegation. \nSupreme Court\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S019","urls":["https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S019","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf; slip pp. 4–5, zero-based indices 3–4.","Version/status and actual access":"Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Federal court must stay rather than dismiss when §3 stay requested. \nSupreme Court\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S020","urls":["https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S020","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411 (2022). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf; slip pp. 5–7, zero-based indices 4–6.","Version/status and actual access":"Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"No arbitration-specific prejudice requirement for waiver. \nSupreme Court\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S021","urls":["https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-340_o7kq.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S021","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. 105 (2019). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-340_o7kq.pdf; slip pp. 5–8, zero-based indices 4–7.","Version/status and actual access":"Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Court decides FAA §1 transportation-worker exclusion despite delegation. \nSupreme Court\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S022","urls":["https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/565bv.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S022","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95 (2012). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/565bv.pdf; printed U.S. Reports pp. 95–96 and 104, zero-based PDF indices 308–309 and 317.","Version/status and actual access":"Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion. Holding boundedly reused from reviewed PASS-06/PASS-13 and rechecked October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"CROA does not categorically bar arbitration; no approval of remedy-stripping clauses. \nSupreme Court"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_primary_or_explicit_dated_reuse_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S022","url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/565bv.pdf","body":"CompuCredit selected syllabus/posture","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19034,19081]],"scope":"Dated NE6 text, printed95-96/PDF308-309; distinguish syllabus, majority, concurrence and dissent. Not whole bound volume/opinion/current citator, no new public case inquiry.","access_kind":"dated_saved_primary_reuse","packet_sha256":"657135f972e407c8aff9dfe83778c79b42e59aa5f27b1a16ab70207187573817","prior_review":"[internal evidence reference]","prior_review_completed_at":"2026-10-26T10:25:51.644160+00:00"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S022","url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/565bv.pdf","body":"CompuCredit majority conclusion","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19323,19326]],"scope":"Dated NE6 majority conclusion printed104/PDF317: CROAsilence/FAAterms and reversal. Does not approve a remedy-stripping clause or every provider agreement. No fresh pixels/later history.","access_kind":"dated_saved_primary_reuse","packet_sha256":"657135f972e407c8aff9dfe83778c79b42e59aa5f27b1a16ab70207187573817","prior_review":"[internal evidence reference]","prior_review_completed_at":"2026-10-26T10:25:51.644160+00:00"}],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S023","urls":["https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S023","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U.S. 176 (2019). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf; slip pp. 4–9, zero-based indices 3–8.","Version/status and actual access":"Final U.S. Supreme Court opinion, freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Ambiguity insufficient for class arbitration; class-waiver merits not comprehensively analyzed. \nSupreme Court\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","urls":["https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S024","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures, American Arbitration Association. https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf; R-1 printed p.6/PDF index 5; R-2 p.7/index 6; R-4 pp.8–10/indices 7–9; R-7 and R-9 p.11/index 10; R-12 p.13/index 12; R-39 p.23/index 22; R-55/R-56 p.27/index 26.","Version/status and actual access":"Amended and effective May 1, 2025; freshly read and visually checked October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Private administrator rules, not law or enforceability opinion. \nAmerican Arbitration Association\n+9"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_primary_or_explicit_dated_reuse_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","url":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","body":"AAA R-1","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[105,156]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body or bodies in May1,2025PDF text; printed6-7/PDF5-6. No pixels inspected, no entire37page publication read, no actual incorporation/version/admission/court effect or administrator account investigation. Neighboring text is not blanket acceptance.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"71f1e6151230b98ae5e9f06d0fa0f9bd06978226db1e3261b347c55877a6145e"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","url":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","body":"AAA R-2","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[157,165]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body or bodies in May1,2025PDF text; printed7-8/PDF6-7. No pixels inspected, no entire37page publication read, no actual incorporation/version/admission/court effect or administrator account investigation. Neighboring text is not blanket acceptance.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"71f1e6151230b98ae5e9f06d0fa0f9bd06978226db1e3261b347c55877a6145e"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","url":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","body":"AAA R-4","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[176,257]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body or bodies in May1,2025PDF text; printed8-10/PDF7-9. No pixels inspected, no entire37page publication read, no actual incorporation/version/admission/court effect or administrator account investigation. Neighboring text is not blanket acceptance.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"71f1e6151230b98ae5e9f06d0fa0f9bd06978226db1e3261b347c55877a6145e"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","url":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","body":"AAA R-5","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[258,273]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body or bodies in May1,2025PDF text; printed10/PDF9. No pixels inspected, no entire37page publication read, no actual incorporation/version/admission/court effect or administrator account investigation. Neighboring text is not blanket acceptance.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"789104ca117aaf1e462aff7e0214b318ca8deaa581737ac5f68680d1e9b0f8e9"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","url":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","body":"AAA R-7","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[283,295]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body or bodies in May1,2025PDF text; printed11/PDF10. No pixels inspected, no entire37page publication read, no actual incorporation/version/admission/court effect or administrator account investigation. Neighboring text is not blanket acceptance.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"789104ca117aaf1e462aff7e0214b318ca8deaa581737ac5f68680d1e9b0f8e9"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","url":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","body":"AAA R-9","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[302,315]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body or bodies in May1,2025PDF text; printed11-12/PDF10-11. No pixels inspected, no entire37page publication read, no actual incorporation/version/admission/court effect or administrator account investigation. Neighboring text is not blanket acceptance.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"789104ca117aaf1e462aff7e0214b318ca8deaa581737ac5f68680d1e9b0f8e9"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","url":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","body":"AAA R-12","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[342,381]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body or bodies in May1,2025PDF text; printed13-14/PDF12-13. No pixels inspected, no entire37page publication read, no actual incorporation/version/admission/court effect or administrator account investigation. Neighboring text is not blanket acceptance.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"f4a417cfae3471c04e9100a405a1ddee9a639000914e66ba54416f1b7fcd7b71"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","url":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","body":"AAA R-39","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[703,706]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body or bodies in May1,2025PDF text; printed23/PDF22. No pixels inspected, no entire37page publication read, no actual incorporation/version/admission/court effect or administrator account investigation. Neighboring text is not blanket acceptance.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"789104ca117aaf1e462aff7e0214b318ca8deaa581737ac5f68680d1e9b0f8e9"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","url":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","body":"AAA R-55/R-56","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[844,887]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body or bodies in May1,2025PDF text; printed27-28/PDF26-27. No pixels inspected, no entire37page publication read, no actual incorporation/version/admission/court effect or administrator account investigation. Neighboring text is not blanket acceptance.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"789104ca117aaf1e462aff7e0214b318ca8deaa581737ac5f68680d1e9b0f8e9"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","url":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","body":"AAA R-58","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[899,906]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body or bodies in May1,2025PDF text; printed28-29transition/PDF27-28. No pixels inspected, no entire37page publication read, no actual incorporation/version/admission/court effect or administrator account investigation. Neighboring text is not blanket acceptance.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"789104ca117aaf1e462aff7e0214b318ca8deaa581737ac5f68680d1e9b0f8e9"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","url":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","body":"AAA R-10","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[316,330]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body or bodies in May1,2025PDF text; printed12/PDF11. No pixels inspected, no entire37page publication read, no actual incorporation/version/admission/court effect or administrator account investigation. Neighboring text is not blanket acceptance.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"789104ca117aaf1e462aff7e0214b318ca8deaa581737ac5f68680d1e9b0f8e9"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","url":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","body":"AAA R-28/R-29","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[583,595]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body or bodies in May1,2025PDF text; printed19-20transition/PDF18-19. No pixels inspected, no entire37page publication read, no actual incorporation/version/admission/court effect or administrator account investigation. Neighboring text is not blanket acceptance.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"f4a417cfae3471c04e9100a405a1ddee9a639000914e66ba54416f1b7fcd7b71"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","url":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","body":"AAA R-51/R-52","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[805,828]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body or bodies in May1,2025PDF text; printed26/PDF25. No pixels inspected, no entire37page publication read, no actual incorporation/version/admission/court effect or administrator account investigation. Neighboring text is not blanket acceptance.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"789104ca117aaf1e462aff7e0214b318ca8deaa581737ac5f68680d1e9b0f8e9"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S024","url":"https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","body":"AAA R-57","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[888,898]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body or bodies in May1,2025PDF text; printed28/PDF27. No pixels inspected, no entire37page publication read, no actual incorporation/version/admission/court effect or administrator account investigation. Neighboring text is not blanket acceptance.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"789104ca117aaf1e462aff7e0214b318ca8deaa581737ac5f68680d1e9b0f8e9"}],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q003","S_NE-P15-Q004"],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S025","urls":["https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S025","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules, Forms & Fee Schedule, AAA. https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/.","Version/status and actual access":"Current public page freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Current private forms and fee links; no numerical AAA fee adopted here. \nAmerican Arbitration Association"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_primary_or_explicit_dated_reuse_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S025","url":"https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/","body":"AAA public resources selected body","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[3,55]],"scope":"Forms/rules/fees headings and FAQ administrative allocation/waiver body; no downloaded fee schedule or form body/version. Duplicated FAQ text and dynamic no-link headings do not prove all current attachments or a numeric fee.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"9ceb28e2de2bc6c6b52737d6c0886e41852e888cf558ee25b024a503b752ab6d"}],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S026","urls":["https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S026","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"JAMS Consumer Minimum Standards, JAMS. https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards; standards 1–10 and footnote scope.","Version/status and actual access":"Updated and effective May 1, 2024; freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Private administrative fairness policy, not Nebraska law. \nJAMS\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_primary_or_explicit_dated_reuse_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S026","url":"https://www.jamsadr.com/consumer-minimum-standards","body":"JAMS Consumer Minimum Standards1-10and scope footnote","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[11,33]],"scope":"Complete policy body/version and footnote. Private mandatory predispute consumer standard, not statute; commercial/investment/realestate/underinsuredmotorist/negotiated exclusions retained.250USD is policy text, not an actual fee quote or payment authorization.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"6bfaea386c6f1c4cdbb4b742e5d822f61df9ddf9b4fa29d28077f7ec19140088"}],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S027","urls":["https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S027","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures, JAMS. https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration; Rules 1, 3, 5, 6(c), 9, 11, 27, and 31.","Version/status and actual access":"Effective June 1, 2021; freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Private rules; contract may choose another version or rule set. \nJAMS\n+5"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_primary_or_explicit_dated_reuse_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S027","url":"https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration","body":"JAMS Rule1","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[60,69]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body from page labeled June1,2021. Not the entire Comprehensive Rules; actual contract/rules/party classification/notice/order/payment and legal application remain held. Rule4law priority and Rule9(f)timely objections preserved.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"6bfaea386c6f1c4cdbb4b742e5d822f61df9ddf9b4fa29d28077f7ec19140088"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S027","url":"https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration","body":"JAMS Rule3","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[83,85]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body from page labeled June1,2021. Not the entire Comprehensive Rules; actual contract/rules/party classification/notice/order/payment and legal application remain held. Rule4law priority and Rule9(f)timely objections preserved.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"6bfaea386c6f1c4cdbb4b742e5d822f61df9ddf9b4fa29d28077f7ec19140088"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S027","url":"https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration","body":"JAMS Rule4","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[86,88]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body from page labeled June1,2021. Not the entire Comprehensive Rules; actual contract/rules/party classification/notice/order/payment and legal application remain held. Rule4law priority and Rule9(f)timely objections preserved.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"6bfaea386c6f1c4cdbb4b742e5d822f61df9ddf9b4fa29d28077f7ec19140088"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S027","url":"https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration","body":"JAMS Rule5","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[89,102]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body from page labeled June1,2021. Not the entire Comprehensive Rules; actual contract/rules/party classification/notice/order/payment and legal application remain held. Rule4law priority and Rule9(f)timely objections preserved.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"6bfaea386c6f1c4cdbb4b742e5d822f61df9ddf9b4fa29d28077f7ec19140088"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S027","url":"https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration","body":"JAMS Rule6","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[103,119]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body from page labeled June1,2021. Not the entire Comprehensive Rules; actual contract/rules/party classification/notice/order/payment and legal application remain held. Rule4law priority and Rule9(f)timely objections preserved.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"6bfaea386c6f1c4cdbb4b742e5d822f61df9ddf9b4fa29d28077f7ec19140088"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S027","url":"https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration","body":"JAMS Rule9","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[135,143]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body from page labeled June1,2021. Not the entire Comprehensive Rules; actual contract/rules/party classification/notice/order/payment and legal application remain held. Rule4law priority and Rule9(f)timely objections preserved.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"6bfaea386c6f1c4cdbb4b742e5d822f61df9ddf9b4fa29d28077f7ec19140088"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S027","url":"https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration","body":"JAMS Rule11","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[147,152]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body from page labeled June1,2021. Not the entire Comprehensive Rules; actual contract/rules/party classification/notice/order/payment and legal application remain held. Rule4law priority and Rule9(f)timely objections preserved.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"6bfaea386c6f1c4cdbb4b742e5d822f61df9ddf9b4fa29d28077f7ec19140088"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S027","url":"https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration","body":"JAMS Rule27","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[321,324]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body from page labeled June1,2021. Not the entire Comprehensive Rules; actual contract/rules/party classification/notice/order/payment and legal application remain held. Rule4law priority and Rule9(f)timely objections preserved.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"71f1e6151230b98ae5e9f06d0fa0f9bd06978226db1e3261b347c55877a6145e"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S027","url":"https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration","body":"JAMS Rule31","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[338,343]],"scope":"Complete selected private rule body from page labeled June1,2021. Not the entire Comprehensive Rules; actual contract/rules/party classification/notice/order/payment and legal application remain held. Rule4law priority and Rule9(f)timely objections preserved.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"71f1e6151230b98ae5e9f06d0fa0f9bd06978226db1e3261b347c55877a6145e"}],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q003"],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S028","urls":["https://www.jamsadr.com/adr-forms"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S028","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"JAMS Arbitration Forms & Documents, JAMS. https://www.jamsadr.com/adr-forms.","Version/status and actual access":"Current public page freshly read October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"Sample private forms; JAMS directs users to contract and applicable law. \nJAMS"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_primary_or_explicit_dated_reuse_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S028","url":"https://www.jamsadr.com/adr-forms","body":"JAMS forms inventory selected body","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[12,35]],"scope":"Actual listed sample resources and contract/applicable-law caution only. No underlying demand, stipulation, subpoena or proof form body/version/pixels; no filing or contact.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"9ceb28e2de2bc6c6b52737d6c0886e41852e888cf558ee25b024a503b752ab6d"}],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S029","urls":["https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-632","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-634","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-636"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S029","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Nebraska UETA—electronic assent gateway, Legislature. https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-632; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-634; https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-636.","Version/status and actual access":"Current official codification freshly read October 26, 2026; consistent with reviewed PASS-13’s bounded relationship correction.","Read bounds and limits":"Electronic agreement, legal recognition, and attribution only; full E-SIGN/UETA dossier not repeated. \nNebraska Legislature\n+2"},"coordinator_verification_status":"selected_primary_or_explicit_dated_reuse_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S029","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-632","body":"86-632","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,25]],"scope":"Complete operative UETA gateway body; full E-SIGN/UETA conformity, actual consent/signature/attribution and current historical chain remain held. NE13 bounded relationship correction retained.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"18c4f544dd903be3b655a19414d6b396e227490802c8a4cd656cede26d4788cd"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S029","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-634","body":"86-634","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,25]],"scope":"Complete operative UETA gateway body; full E-SIGN/UETA conformity, actual consent/signature/attribution and current historical chain remain held. NE13 bounded relationship correction retained.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"18c4f544dd903be3b655a19414d6b396e227490802c8a4cd656cede26d4788cd"},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S029","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=86-636","body":"86-636","packet":"[internal evidence reference]","returned_line_ranges":[[19,20]],"scope":"Complete operative UETA gateway body; full E-SIGN/UETA conformity, actual consent/signature/attribution and current historical chain remain held. NE13 bounded relationship correction retained.","access_kind":"fresh_public_primary","packet_sha256":"6bfaea386c6f1c4cdbb4b742e5d822f61df9ddf9b4fa29d28077f7ec19140088"}],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}},{"source_id":"S_NE-P15-S030","urls":["https://nebraskajudicial.gov/forms"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_NE-P15-S030","Title, issuer, full literal URL, exact pinpoint":"Nebraska Judicial Branch Master Forms List and bounded official searches, https://nebraskajudicial.gov/forms; Nebraska appellate repository and official statutory searches for arbitration form, compel, stay, assignment, waiver, consumer arbitration, and 2025–2026 currentness.","Version/status and actual access":"Freshly checked October 26, 2026.","Read bounds and limits":"No standardized statewide Nebraska motion or petition to compel/stay arbitration located. Not a local-form, unpublished-order, trial-docket, or commercial-citator search. \nNebraska Judicial Branch"},"coordinator_verification_status":"unreopened_researcher_attribution_with_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","review":"[internal evidence reference]","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","read_map":[],"actual_application_not_accepted":true,"material_findings":[],"researcher_cells_unchanged":true}}],"coverage":[{"topic":"Nebraska UAA validity","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Nebraska UAA validity","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C001–C004","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual agreement and transaction"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Nebraska special notice","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Nebraska special notice","Status":"Answered with FAA qualification","Claim IDs":"C005–C006","Exact missing evidence or next action":"FAA commerce determination"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"FAA commerce","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"FAA commerce","Status":"Answered as rule; fact-specific application held","Claim IDs":"C008–C009","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual contracting and transaction facts"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"FAA transportation-worker exclusion","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"FAA transportation-worker exclusion","Status":"Answered as narrow gateway","Claim IDs":"C010","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual work and commerce facts"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"EFAA exception","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"EFAA exception","Status":"Answered as narrow gateway","Claim IDs":"C011","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual alleged dispute and accrual"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Insurance exception","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Insurance exception","Status":"Answered only as boundary","Claim IDs":"C004","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual insurance relationship; excluded ordinary-debt merits"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Choice of law","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Choice of law","Status":"Answered generally","Claim IDs":"C059","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual clause, selected state, contacts, scope"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Written/electronic agreement","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Written/electronic agreement","Status":"Answered generally","Claim IDs":"C021","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Complete record, consent, attribution"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Consumer assent","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Consumer assent","Status":"Answered as judicial formation issue","Claim IDs":"C012–C014","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual notice, signature, use, opt-out"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Original creditor enforcement","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Original creditor enforcement","Status":"Answered generally","Claim IDs":"C012, C015","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Operative contract and account linkage"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Assignee/debt buyer enforcement","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Assignee/debt buyer enforcement","Status":"Answered conditionally","Claim IDs":"C025–C026","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Assignment chain, account schedule, clause transfer"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Servicer enforcement","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Servicer enforcement","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C026–C028","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Servicing/agency agreement and clause scope"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Trustee enforcement","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Trustee enforcement","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C027","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Trust instrument and account ownership"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Affiliate enforcement","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Affiliate enforcement","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C027–C028","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Agency, alter ego, estoppel, beneficiary facts"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Nonsignatory theories","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Nonsignatory theories","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C027–C028","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual doctrine-specific facts"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Conflicting contracts","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Conflicting contracts","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C014","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Complete contracts and sequence"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Incorporation by reference","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Incorporation by reference","Status":"Answered generally","Claim IDs":"C022–C024","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Exact reference, version, availability"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Incorporation of AAA/JAMS rules","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Incorporation of AAA/JAMS rules","Status":"Answered conditionally","Claim IDs":"C023–C024","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual clause and selected rule set"},"coordinator_acceptance":"bounded_correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q003"],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Court decides formation","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Court decides formation","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C012–C014","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Formation evidence"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Court decides clause/delegation challenge","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Court decides clause/delegation challenge","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C017, C020","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Specific challenge language"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Whole-contract challenge","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Whole-contract challenge","Status":"Answered conditionally","Claim IDs":"C018","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Valid formation and delegation"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Wholly-groundless exception","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Wholly-groundless exception","Status":"Answered as unavailable","Claim IDs":"C019","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Valid delegation predicate"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Nebraska UAA motion/service","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Nebraska UAA motion/service","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C029–C031","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual application and service"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Nebraska UAA venue","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Nebraska UAA venue","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"S001","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Contract hearing location and adverse-party residence"},"coordinator_acceptance":"bounded_correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q004","S_NE-P15-Q005"],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Nebraska state stay","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Nebraska state stay","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C032–C033","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Qualifying application or order"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"County-court coordination","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"County-court coordination","Status":"Unresolved","Claim IDs":"C035","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Controlling case, local order, or procedural authority"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Federal §4 proceeding","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Federal §4 proceeding","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C036","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Independent federal jurisdiction"},"coordinator_acceptance":"bounded_correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q001"],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Federal §3 stay","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Federal §3 stay","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C037–C038","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Agreement, arbitrable issue, no default, stay request"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"State answer deadline during compel dispute","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"State answer deadline during compel dispute","Status":"Answered as no automatic extension","Claim IDs":"C039–C041","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual stay, extension, stipulation"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Sua sponte arbitration","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Sua sponte arbitration","Status":"Answered as improper generally","Claim IDs":"C042","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Party invocation"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Fraud/duress/unconscionability","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Fraud/duress/unconscionability","Status":"Answered as general-defense framework","Claim IDs":"C007, C017–C020","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual clause and factual record"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Nebraska “voluntarily and willingly” condition under FAA","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Nebraska “voluntarily and willingly” condition under FAA","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C002, C006–C007","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Controlling case applying subsection (b) under FAA"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Statutory-remedy nonwaiver","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Statutory-remedy nonwaiver","Status":"Answered narrowly","Claim IDs":"C054–C055","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual statute and clause"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"CROA arbitration","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"CROA arbitration","Status":"Answered as not categorically barred","Claim IDs":"C054","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual CROA coverage and remedy language"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Class arbitration","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Class arbitration","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C056","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual affirmative contractual basis"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Class-action waiver","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Class-action waiver","Status":"Partial/excluded","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual clause and statutory claim"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Jury waiver","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Jury waiver","Status":"Partial","Claim IDs":"S003/S004","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual formation dispute and preserved jury demand"},"coordinator_acceptance":"bounded_correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q001","S_NE-P15-Q004"],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Litigation-conduct waiver","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Litigation-conduct waiver","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C043–C045","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Complete docket and claim chronology"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Participation waiver","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Participation waiver","Status":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C046–C048","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual arbitral objection and hearing record"},"coordinator_acceptance":"bounded_correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q003"],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Nonpayment waiver/default","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Nonpayment waiver/default","Status":"Unresolved beyond private rules","Claim IDs":"C051","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual notices, contract, administrator action, case authority"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"AAA rule version","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"AAA rule version","Status":"Answered current version; contract application partial","Claim IDs":"C023–C024, C049–C053","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual contract’s version language"},"coordinator_acceptance":"bounded_correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q003"],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"JAMS rule version","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"JAMS rule version","Status":"Answered current version; contract application partial","Claim IDs":"C024, C051–C052","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual contract and consumer classification"},"coordinator_acceptance":"bounded_correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q003"],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Administrator fee allocation","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Administrator fee allocation","Status":"Answered only for current JAMS standard; AAA held","Claim IDs":"C052–C053","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Current case-specific schedule and hardship rules"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Administrator clause registry","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Administrator clause registry","Status":"Answered as administrative only","Claim IDs":"C050","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual registered clause and current status"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Small-claims option in private rules","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Small-claims option in private rules","Status":"Answered privately; Nebraska eligibility held","Claim IDs":"S024","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual Nebraska Small Claims Court predicates"},"coordinator_acceptance":"bounded_correction_pending_UNSENT","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":["S_NE-P15-Q002","S_NE-P15-Q004"],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Appeal from denial or grant","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Appeal from denial or grant","Status":"Answered as gateway boundary","Claim IDs":"C057–C058","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Exact order and finality"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Award confirmation/vacatur/modification","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Award confirmation/vacatur/modification","Status":"Excluded/later","Claim IDs":"C062","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Separate award-review pass"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Arbitration limitations tolling","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Arbitration limitations tolling","Status":"Not established","Claim IDs":"C061","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual clause, filing date, applicable limitation law"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Full arbitration discovery","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Full arbitration discovery","Status":"Excluded","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Administrator rule, order, and substantive evidence needs"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Substantive debt standing/evidence","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Substantive debt standing/evidence","Status":"Excluded except assignment gateway","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"PASS-14 review and later work"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Service/default/vacatur","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Service/default/vacatur","Status":"Excluded except stay/response crossover","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"PASS-12 review and later work"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Provider licensing/remedies","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Provider licensing/remedies","Status":"Excluded except CROA gateway","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Reviewed provider passes and later work"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Secured, medical, government, tax, support, education sectors","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Secured, medical, government, tax, support, education sectors","Status":"Excluded","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Sector-specific passes"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Local/tribal/country rules","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Local/tribal/country rules","Status":"Excluded","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Separate jurisdictional work"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Named agreement or account result","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Named agreement or account result","Status":"Not performed","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Actual private contract, account, notices, assignment, docket"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}},{"topic":"Component/state/parent/A066 acceptance","researcher_record":{"Assigned question":"Component/state/parent/A066 acceptance","Status":"Not granted","Claim IDs":"—","Exact missing evidence or next action":"Remaining registry components and scoped review"},"coordinator_acceptance":"coverage_read_with_source_judicial_application_and_parent_holds","coordinator_review":{"at":"2026-10-29T03:29:58.434987+00:00","identity":"delegated coordinator /root/review_wv1; Scott-authorized parallel backlog review","review":"[internal evidence reference]","material_findings":[],"original_exclusions_and_missing_evidence_retained":true,"whole_state_or_parent_acceptance":false}}],"annotations":{},"corrections":[{"issue_id":"S_NE-P15-Q001","finding":"Federal compulsion summary omits concrete notice and jury-preservation predicates F1mentions statutory written notice and a jury mechanism but supplies neither five days nor the return-day/admiralty/district qualifications. H6and answered federal coverage therefore leave consequential timing and venue predicates unstated.","affected_claim_ids":["S_NE-P15-C036"],"related_claim_ids":[],"validated_exact_raw_rows":[],"exact_original_cell_matches":[],"source_urls":["https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/"],"localization":"claim_row_matches_available_no_complete_narrative_localization","public_status":"Recorded correction pending; working-paper assertion requires the stated repair or qualification."},{"issue_id":"S_NE-P15-Q002","finding":"Nebraska statutory SmallClaims arbitration route omitted The report treats SmallClaims only as a private administrator option with Nebraska eligibility held, while omitting the directly relevant statutory arbitration route, transfer prohibition and narrow appellate boundary.","affected_claim_ids":[],"related_claim_ids":[],"validated_exact_raw_rows":[],"exact_original_cell_matches":[],"source_urls":["https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2618.01","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2803","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2805"],"localization":"report_level_pending_localization_required","public_status":"Recorded correction pending; working-paper assertion requires the stated repair or qualification."},{"issue_id":"S_NE-P15-Q003","finding":"Private objection windows missing from waiver and delegation workflows The report gives a broad before-merits judicial-preservation account and generic written-rule-objection warnings but omits these separate private answer-linked windows and JAMSexception. A judicial participation standard does not itself establish timely administrator preservation.","affected_claim_ids":["S_NE-P15-C024","S_NE-P15-C046","S_NE-P15-C047","S_NE-P15-C048"],"related_claim_ids":[],"validated_exact_raw_rows":[],"exact_original_cell_matches":[],"source_urls":["https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf","https://www.jamsadr.com/rules-comprehensive-arbitration"],"localization":"claim_row_matches_available_no_complete_narrative_localization","public_status":"Recorded correction pending; working-paper assertion requires the stated repair or qualification."},{"issue_id":"S_NE-P15-Q004","finding":"Three positive coverage rows lack matching atomic claims Venue, jury and SmallClaims coverage point to source groups rather than matching claim IDs. Their legal qualifications are consequential and several need bounded correction.","affected_claim_ids":[],"related_claim_ids":[],"validated_exact_raw_rows":[],"exact_original_cell_matches":[],"source_urls":["https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2619","https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s4/","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2618.01","https://www.adr.org/media/yawntdvs/2025_consumer_arbitration_rules.pdf"],"localization":"report_level_pending_localization_required","public_status":"Recorded correction pending; working-paper assertion requires the stated repair or qualification."},{"issue_id":"S_NE-P15-Q005","finding":"Initial application venue omits the hearing-already-held branch E2lists only the agreed hearing county and residence/business fallback, omitting the actual-hearing branch while coverage marks venue answered. Court-application venue and hearing venue also need to remain separate.","affected_claim_ids":[],"related_claim_ids":[],"validated_exact_raw_rows":[],"exact_original_cell_matches":[],"source_urls":["https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2619","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-2606","https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=25-403.01"],"localization":"report_level_pending_localization_required","public_status":"Recorded correction pending; working-paper assertion requires the stated repair or qualification."}],"resolved_corrections":[],"review_history":[{"id":"S_NE-pass-15-scoped","status":"reviewed_with_holds_material_corrections_pending_UNSENT","at":null}]}