FIND THE EXPLANATION

Mediation, arbitration or court: which process applies?

Identify who decides the outcome, which rules apply and what happens if agreement is not reached.

This address preserves a dated source document behind the guide. The complete explanation covers the questions, comparisons and next steps for this subject.

If you came here to check a specific citation, open the original archive below. It includes its source dates and recorded qualifications.

Original source archive (optional)Original working documents, complete tables and revision history

About this archive

The explanation above is written for readers. These original working documents preserve the evidence trail, including technical language, dated passages and known corrections. They have not all received independent professional review. Use the marked limits before relying on a particular rule or figure.

DETAILED RESEARCH · EVIDENCE & LIMITS INCLUDED

Arkansas ordinary consumer contract/account arbitration: agreement, delegation, enforcement, and award review

S_AR · pass-14Captured 2026-10-2733 tables · 100 claim records · 39 source recordsScoped coordinator review completed

Read the evidence with its boundaries. These are saved research components, including revisions. A scoped coordinator review checks selected evidence; it does not certify every claim, a complete jurisdiction, current law or individual applicability. Dates and access limits remain attached to the records.

How to read the research →

Read the related correction supplements

These components repair their stated scope. They do not replace every other finding in this research series.

Arkansas credit-services and credit-repair organizations: classification, security, contracts, cancellation, refunds, and limited remedies →

SettleADebt — S_AR PASS-14

Arkansas ordinary consumer contract/account arbitration: agreement, delegation, enforcement, and award review

Research/access date: October 27, 2026, Pacific and UTC. Session clock checks recorded 09:13:13 PDT / 16:13:13 UTC and 09:26:19 PDT / 16:26:19 UTC. These are session checkpoints, not individual source-opening timestamps. Exact opening times for individual sources are unknown.

Provenance: Earlier raw answers remain unchanged. No legal conclusion from an unreviewed earlier pass was adopted. No actual agreement, account, assignment, award, court record, party status, or authorization was examined.

Scope: Ordinary unsecured consumer contract/account arbitration—whether an agreement exists, who can enforce it, who decides a particular issue, the court-enforcement process, and the limited award-review gateway. This is not a determination of the underlying debt’s validity or amount.

Principal findings

Formation comes before contractual delegation. A clause assigning arbitrability to an arbitrator cannot simply be assumed authentic or assented to. Arkansas’s Newby decision rejected an insufficient connection between a generic cardholder agreement and the consumer. The 2026 Arkansas Kenworth decision addressed a materially disputed signature and upheld the formation-trial route on its record. Neither establishes that every denial defeats arbitration or that every electronic record proves assent. C014–C021, C026–C032. Justia Law+1

The current Arkansas act has a date-specific transition rule and three express exclusions, but no general consumer-contract exclusion. The displayed § 16-108-203 uses July 27, 2011; earlier agreements enter the revised act only through the stated agreement-in-a-record route. The original act was approved March 24, 2011, but approval is not its commencement date. The current integrated Code and complete later-law chain remain partially authenticated. C001–C003. Justia Law+1

A requested federal stay is not interchangeable with dismissal, and federal jurisdiction is not supplied by the FAA alone. Smith requires the § 3 stay when its predicates and a request are present. Badgerow rejects look-through jurisdiction for freestanding award applications. The Supreme Court’s May 14, 2026 decision in Jules separately holds that a federal court with jurisdiction over a case stayed under § 3 retains jurisdiction over the resulting confirmation or vacatur motions. C008–C011, C045–C046. Supreme Court+2

The award clocks differ in both units and required acts. FAA § 12 requires notice of the motion to be served within three months after the award is filed or delivered. Arkansas §§ 223–224 use ninety-day filing periods tied to receipt of notice, with a specific discovery rule for the stated fraud/corruption/undue-means ground. Three months is not automatically ninety days. C066–C080. US Code+1

Judicial review is not a general second trial. Hall Street and the Eighth Circuit’s Medicine Shoppe decision restrict the FAA’s expedited review to the statutory grounds. An asserted legal error is not automatically an independent vacatur ground. Conversely, losing an arbitration-enforcement motion is not winning the debt merits, and an award is not itself an actual payment or levy. C081–C085. GovInfo+1

In this report, S001 means S_AR-P14-S001, and C001 means S_AR-P14-C001. The source register supplies full literal HTTPS URLs, material pinpoints, and reading limits.

A. Applicable regimes, dates, and courts

A1. Regime matrix

Regime or question	Operative starting point	Necessary predicates and limits
Arkansas Uniform Arbitration Act	Arkansas Code §§ 16-108-201–233, materially enacted by Act 695 of 2011.	Determine agreement date, transition, exclusions, and applicable federal law.
Agreements on or after July 27, 2011	Displayed § 203(a) applies the revised subchapter.	This date is verified in the codification reproduction; the original act uses its effective-date formulation.
Earlier agreements	Section 203(b) permits application if all specified parties agree in a record.	Do not automatically apply the revised act to every older agreement. Section 233(a) also preserves the stated earlier proceedings/accrued rights.
State exclusions	Section 233(b): personal-injury/tort matters; employer–employee disputes; an insured or beneficiary under an insurance policy or annuity contract.	An exclusion from this state act is not necessarily an exclusion from the FAA. Insurance-related federal/state interaction is separately held.
Ordinary consumer or business contract	Neither ordinary consumer purpose nor business purpose alone decides arbitration coverage.	The actual agreement, transaction, parties, scope, and applicable law must be proved.
FAA § 2	Written arbitration provision in a covered maritime transaction or contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce; generally applicable contract defenses preserved.	A contractual statement “FAA applies” does not by itself prove agreement, commerce, authority, or federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
FAA § 1	Defines commerce and contains the specified transportation-employment exclusion.	It is not a generic consumer-debt exemption. Employment classification is outside this pass.
Later federal exception	Chapter 4 permits the specified election concerning sexual-assault or sexual-harassment disputes, with court determination under § 402(b).	Its definitions, claim timing, election, and statutory application must be established. It is not a general ordinary-debt exception.
State court enforcing an FAA-covered agreement	Federal substantive enforceability and preemption matter; available state procedure must be separately identified.	Badgerow notes that the Supreme Court has not categorically resolved direct application of all FAA §§ 4 and 9–11 procedures in state court.
Federal court	An independent jurisdictional basis is ordinarily required.	FAA applicability does not itself create federal-question jurisdiction. Section 4’s particular look-through mechanism differs from freestanding award motions.

C001–C013, C087–C088, C097. FindLaw+3

Enactment and codification qualifications

Act 695’s original numbering is not identical to the current displayed Code. Its electronic-signatures and savings provisions appear under different numbers in the enacted text than current §§ 230 and 233. The current index also identifies reserved sections. These are not treated as separate corroborating enactments.

Section 204 distinguishes provisions that can be varied, provisions that cannot be waived before a controversy, and provisions that cannot be waived or varied at all. A generic contract statement that “all statutory rights are waived” does not resolve those requirements or FAA preemption. C001–C003, C013. Justia Law

A2. Court authority, venue, and federal jurisdiction

Stage	Court/forum rule examined	What remains necessary
State motion concerning an agreement	§§ 205, 207 and 226 require the appropriate court and parties; pending litigation affects where the motion belongs.	Actual court competence, pending action, notice and jurisdiction.
Arkansas arbitration venue	Section 227 addresses the agreed or actual hearing county, adverse-party residence/business alternatives, and subsequent motions in the same court unless directed otherwise.	No actual county or forum is selected here.
Federal motion to compel	Section 4’s text requires the stated independent-jurisdiction inquiry, aggrieved party/refusal predicate, notice and district-related conditions.	The statutory district language is not a universal forum-selection ruling for every posture.
Freestanding federal confirmation/vacatur	Badgerow: no § 4-style look-through for §§ 9–10 applications.	Actual diversity, federal question on the application, or another valid jurisdictional basis.
Award motion in an already stayed federal case	Jules: a court with jurisdiction over live claims stayed under § 3 retains jurisdiction over resulting §§ 9–10 motions.	A genuinely pending qualifying case—not merely an arbitration clause naming federal court.
State § 226’s Arkansas-arbitration provision	Supplies state-court authority under its terms.	It does not itself eliminate otherwise existing federal jurisdiction or create federal jurisdiction.

C008–C012. Jules affirmed the court of appeals; it did not authorize manufacturing a federal case solely to create an award-review forum. Supreme Court+1

B. Formation, assent, defenses, and delegation

B1. Formation and evidence matrix

Issue	Required inquiry	Consequence and uncertainty
Offer and operative version	Identify the agreement actually presented, its date/version, incorporated material and change history.	A current webpage does not prove the terms presented earlier.
Assent	Establish legally sufficient acceptance under applicable contract law.	A signature, use, payment, checkbox or screenshot is evidence whose significance depends on the record—not an automatic conclusion.
Electronic record	Apply electronic-record recognition, agreement/context and attribution rules.	Electronic form is not inherently invalid; it also does not prove who acted or what was displayed.
Capacity and authority	Establish competent parties and actual representative authority.	Kindred Nursing rejects an arbitration-specific authority barrier, not ordinary neutral agency requirements.
Consideration and mutuality	Apply ordinary contract principles without imposing arbitration-only burdens.	Jorja Trading did not require identical reciprocal remedies. Its concurrence’s proposed broader abolition of mutuality was not the majority holding.
Delivery/access	Prove that the asserted terms and incorporation were communicated in a legally sufficient manner.	A generic account document or unexplained form can fail to connect the consumer to the arbitration terms.
Modification	Identify the original change mechanism, actual notice, effective version and assent/other legally sufficient basis.	A unilateral-change label neither automatically invalidates nor validates the clause.
Opt-out	Apply the actual provision and prove the event, method and timing.	No statutory universal opt-out period was established.
Survival and scope	Read the actual text for past claims, termination, parties and covered disputes.	Broad wording does not create assent or necessarily cover every later claim.
Cost/access defense	Identify likely actual costs, allocation, available relief and the asserted legal defense.	Green Tree rejected a speculative cost showing; it did not establish that every cost barrier is harmless.

C014–C025. Justia Law+3

Three Arkansas formation decisions must not be collapsed

Newby: The proponent did not sufficiently connect the asserted cardholder agreement to the consumer. The direct appeal was affirmed; the sanctions cross-appeal was dismissed, not decided as a merits affirmance.
Runyan: Assent was found on the particular invoice references, payments, admissions and record. The decision is not a universal rule that paying any statement accepts any website term.
Arkansas Kenworth: A specific signature denial and conflicting evidence presented a genuine formation issue. The majority upheld the trial route while preserving the case’s argument-preservation limits. It did not finally decide that an agreement existed or did not exist.

C018–C021. Justia Law+2

B2. Who decides which challenge?

Challenge actually made	Default decision-maker or rule	Important qualification
“I never agreed to this contract or clause.”	Court determines whether the agreement was formed.	Genuine factual disputes can require the applicable trial procedure.
“The entire contract is unlawful or invalid.”	Buckeye separates whole-contract validity from the arbitration provision.	Its holding expressly distinguishes whether any agreement was ever concluded.
“The arbitration clause itself is unenforceable.”	Court ordinarily addresses that targeted challenge unless a valid delegation assigns it.	The delegation’s existence and enforceability must be separately tested.
“The delegation provision itself is unconscionable or invalid.”	Rent-A-Center requires attention to that specific challenge.	Merely repeating a challenge to the whole arbitration agreement may not reach the delegation.
“The parties clearly delegated scope or enforceability.”	Clear-and-unmistakable agreement can assign those questions to the arbitrator.	Henry Schein rejects a “wholly groundless” exception once valid delegation applies; it did not decide that the contract there actually delegated.
“Two contracts conflict about arbitration and court.”	Coinbase v. Suski requires the court to resolve which agreement governs that antecedent dispute.	It is not a merits ruling on every later forum clause.
Condition precedent to arbitration	Arkansas § 206(c) assigns the stated condition-precedent question to the arbitrator.	Actual formation and a valid contrary allocation must not be assumed.
Scope of a proved agreement	Section 206(b) supplies the state default, subject to valid agreement and governing federal law.	Scope is different from whether the debt is valid or the balance correct.

C026–C033. GovInfo+3

B3. Institutional rules and the limits of the actual reading

In HPD v. TETRA, the Arkansas Supreme Court relied on the particular commercial agreement, its court-exclusion language, and incorporated AAA Construction Industry Rules. The opinion reproduced the relevant R-9 and R-1 provisions and found clear delegation.

That is not proof that every reference to AAA, every consumer agreement, or a current consumer-rule webpage supplies the same delegation. The actual dated construction-rule body incorporated in HPD was not independently retrieved in this pass. The current consumer rules and fee-schedule downloads also were not obtained as complete operative bodies.

Accordingly, the historical rule text quoted in HPD is attributed to the opinion, and the exact provider version, incorporation, consumer context, and fee schedule remain held. C033–C034, C065. Justia Law

B4. Neutral defenses and preemption

Concepcion and Kindred Nursing prohibit defenses that single out arbitration or covertly disfavor its defining features. They do not eliminate all neutral fraud, duress, incapacity, unconscionability, authority, cost, or contract-formation defenses.

A defense must be identified precisely, supported factually, applied evenhandedly, and directed at the correct contractual level. A public-policy objection to arbitration as such is not interchangeable with a proved generally applicable contract defect. C007, C022–C025. GovInfo+1

C. Assignment and nonsignatory enforcement

C1. Party-rights matrix

Posture	Necessary showing	What does not establish enforcement rights
Original creditor	Actual agreement, party identity, scope and continuing right.	A branded statement alone.
Genuine assignee	Valid transfer of the relevant contractual rights and connection to this agreement/account.	A generic portfolio purchase or purchase price.
Successive debt buyer	Each legally material transfer and the applicable successor/assign language or other governing law.	An authentic last bill of sale that leaves an earlier link or account inclusion unproved.
Servicer	Actual agency/servicing authority and a legal basis to invoke arbitration for the relevant party.	Processing payments or sending notices alone.
Affiliate	Contract definition or a recognized nonsignatory theory with its elements proved.	Common ownership or a shared brand alone.
Nonsignatory claiming estoppel, beneficiary, agency, assumption or similar theory	Applicable state contract law and the particular facts.	FAA policy as a substitute for the theory’s elements.
Consumer facing an assignee	Existing defenses remain material under the applicable assignment law.	Transfer does not automatically discharge contract defenses.

Arthur Andersen v. Carlisle holds that the FAA does not categorically prevent nonsignatories from relying on traditional state-law enforcement doctrines. It did not find that the movants had proved a particular estoppel theory; that required further proceedings. C035–C038. GovInfo

Arkansas §§ 4-58-102 and 105 were freshly read for the limited transfer boundary. Section 105’s defense-preservation language is relevant, but the complete assignment, UCC, choice-of-law and real-party-in-interest regimes are not reconstructed here. C035, C038.

Arbitration enforceability is not debt enforceability. Compelling arbitration does not adjudicate ownership, authorization of every charge, or the amount due. Denying arbitration does not establish that the consumer owes nothing. C039.

D. Enforcement, waiver, stay, and appeal

D1. Court-enforcement matrix

Event	Arkansas route examined	FAA route examined
Relief requested	§ 205 uses a motion with notice under applicable civil rules; an initial motion absent pending litigation has the stated summons-service requirement.	§ 6 generally treats applications as motions, except where the FAA provides otherwise.
Refusal to arbitrate	§ 207 requires the agreement/refusal showing; opposition is summarily decided under its terms.	§ 4 requires the specified aggrieved party, written agreement, refusal, jurisdiction, notice and hearing predicates.
No enforceable agreement	Court does not compel under § 207.	Section 4 does not authorize bypassing a genuine formation dispute.
Genuine formation issue	Appropriate judicial determination is required.	Section 4 provides a trial and its specific jury-demand mechanism. A bare label or universal jury entitlement is not supplied.
Merits appear weak	Section 207(d) prevents refusal merely because the underlying claim lacks apparent merit.	Arbitrability and debt merits remain distinct.
Pending court case	Section 207(e) directs the motion to the court where the covered proceeding is pending.	Federal court still requires its proper jurisdiction and procedural basis.
Judicial proceeding while arbitrability is decided	Section 207(f) requires a party motion and the prescribed stay.	Section 3 and applicable orders must be established; motion filing alone is not every kind of stay.
Arbitration while court question is pending	Section 206(d) permits proceeding unless the court orders otherwise.	No blanket “court motion stops the arbitration” rule.

C040–C047. Justia Law+1

Provisional judicial relief can be available under § 208’s conditions without necessarily waiving arbitration. Arbitrator appointment, neutrality and disclosures are separately addressed by FAA § 5 and Arkansas §§ 211–212. A failed appointment mechanism does not permit an unsupported assumption that either all arbitration fails or any substitute may be selected. C048–C050.

D2. Litigation-conduct waiver after Morgan

Morgan v. Sundance rejected an arbitration-specific prejudice requirement. It did not itself decide the ultimate waiver result or settle every question about the governing state/federal waiver framework.

Arkansas’s Westlake v. England expressly considered Morgan. It held that Morgan did not overrule Jorja Trading because the latter did not rest on prejudice and involved the actual contract and litigation conduct addressed there.

The bounded result is:

No special prejudice requirement may be reintroduced where Morgan rejects it.
No fixed number of days, answers, discovery requests, or motions automatically establishes waiver.
A contractual reservation and a prior collection suit are relevant facts, not universal immunity from waiver.
The claims litigated, merits activity, requests for judicial decisions, knowledge, timing, and applicable law must be examined.

C051–C054. Supreme Court+1

D3. Stays and appeal categories

Question	Supported rule	Limit
Federal case is arbitrable and a party requests § 3 stay	Smith requires the stay rather than dismissal merely because all claims are arbitrable.	Dismissal for an independent reason, such as lack of jurisdiction, is different.
Federal denial of arbitration is appealed under § 16(a)	Coinbase v. Bielski requires the federal district proceeding to be stayed pending the qualifying interlocutory appeal.	Frivolous-appeal mechanisms and the actual appealed issue matter; this is not automatically Arkansas state-court procedure.
FAA order refuses stay or denies compulsion	Section 16(a) identifies appealable categories.	Actual finality, statute and appellate jurisdiction must be established.
FAA order grants stay or compels arbitration	Section 16(b) generally bars the specified interlocutory appeals, subject to its stated exception.	A final decision and a nonfinal order are different.
Arkansas appeal	Section 228 and Appellate Rule 2(a)(12) identify the state route and categories.	No universal state automatic appellate stay or actual filing deadline is supplied.
Other clocks	The arbitration motion or appeal does not automatically stop every response, limitation, judgment or enforcement clock.	An applicable statute or actual order must support the claimed suspension.

C045–C058. Supreme Court+3

E. Arbitration process and limited award review

E1. Before an award

Step	State provision examined	Conditions
Initiation	§ 209	Notice in a record using the agreed method; otherwise the stated certified/registered-mail receipt or civil-service route; controversy and remedy described.
General notice	§ 202	Reasonable notice method and receipt rules; applies subject to specific provisions.
Hearing	§ 215	Fair process, specified summary-disposition procedure, hearing notice not less than five days, opportunity to be heard, present material evidence and cross-examine.
Participation without timely notice objection	§§ 209 and 215	Can waive the specified notice objection. It is not a universal waiver of every formation or misconduct issue.
Counsel	§ 216	Party may be represented by a lawyer, subject to § 204’s nonwaiver structure.
Award	§ 219	Signed or otherwise authenticated record and notice of the award; agreed/court-set timing and objection provisions matter.
Requested explanation	§ 221(e)	On the specified timely request before receipt of award notice, the arbitrator states the basis in fact and law.
Remedies and costs	§ 221	Court-available damages under required evidentiary standards; attorney fees if law or agreement authorizes; other stated remedy/cost powers.

These provisions are not a complete evidentiary or provider-procedure dossier. No provider fee cap was verified as an operative incorporated schedule, and no provider policy is treated as a statutory entitlement. C059–C065. Justia Law+2

E2. Award, court judgment, and payment are separate events

Route	Required act / unit / trigger	Permitted grounds or consequence
Arkansas arbitrator correction, § 220	Motion and notice to all parties within 20 days after receipt of award notice; objection notice within 10 days after receipt of motion notice.	Specified correction, incomplete-finality or clarification grounds; not general reconsideration on demand.
Arkansas confirmation, § 222	Motion after notice of award.	Court shall confirm unless the statutory change/vacatur/correction conditions apply. No express filing period appears in this section; that is not proof of unlimited time under all law.
Arkansas vacatur, § 223	Motion filed within 90 days after receipt of award notice or qualifying modified/corrected award notice.	Six statutory categories; special discovery trigger for corruption, fraud or undue means.
Arkansas modification, § 224	Motion within 90 days after the stated notice.	Evident numerical/descriptive error; award on unsubmitted matter subject to statutory qualification; imperfection of form not affecting merits.
FAA confirmation, § 9	Its agreement/judgment/forum predicates; application “within one year” after award made.	Mandatory confirmation absent the specified statutory alteration. Consequences of an application beyond one year are not universally decided here.
FAA vacatur, § 10	Applicable court and proper motion/notice.	Corruption/fraud/undue means; evident partiality/corruption; prejudicial hearing misconduct; excess/imperfect execution of powers preventing the specified final award.
FAA modification, § 11	Applicable court and proper motion/notice.	Three confined correction categories.
FAA § 12	Notice of motion must be served within three months after award filed or delivered.	Filing alone is not the stated service act. No automatic conversion to ninety days or state fraud-discovery rule.
Court judgment	Arkansas § 225 or FAA §§ 9, 13, with actual jurisdiction and notice.	Court judgment and enforcement consequences follow the governing provisions; award issuance alone is not an actual levy or payment.

C066–C085. Justia Law+3

E3. Arkansas vacatur grounds, without importing an extra condition

Section 223(a) addresses:

Corruption, fraud, or other undue means in procurement.
The specified evident partiality, corruption, or prejudicial misconduct.
The specified refusal to postpone or consider material evidence, or other substantially prejudicial hearing violation.
Exceeding arbitral powers.
No agreement to arbitrate, unless the person participated without the prescribed objection by the beginning of the hearing.
Improper initiation notice causing substantial prejudice.

The current body read does not add a separate earlier-adverse-§ 207-order condition to paragraph (5). No such condition is invented here.

The ninety-day corruption/fraud/undue-means branch runs from knowledge or when reasonable care would have supplied knowledge. Whether a particular allegation fits that category is a legal and factual question, not a means of relabeling ordinary legal error. C068–C071. Justia Law

E4. Review limits and jurisdiction

Hall Street makes the FAA’s expedited review grounds exclusive in the sense addressed there; a contract cannot simply authorize ordinary legal-error review through that statutory route. Medicine Shoppe applies that principle in the Eighth Circuit and rejects manifest disregard as an independent nonstatutory ground.

Those decisions do not authorize skipping jurisdiction, service, timeliness, or proof of an actual statutory ground. Nor does vacatur necessarily end the controversy: Arkansas § 223(c) permits specified rehearings, with a new arbitrator required for its stated categories. C073, C081–C082.

For jurisdiction, Badgerow and Jules answer different questions:

Badgerow: no look-through for a freestanding §§ 9–10 application.
Jules: a qualifying live federal case stayed under § 3 retains jurisdiction over the resulting award motions.

A contract naming a federal court cannot create subject-matter jurisdiction that otherwise does not exist. C008–C011, C087. Supreme Court+1

F. Primary-opinion matrix

All entries concern published judicial bodies actually read for their material majority reasoning and disposition. Other-subject facts are disclosed rather than treated as ordinary consumer-debt merits holdings. Quoted underlying decisions are not counted as fresh reads.

Authority / source	Court/date, posture and narrow holding	Disposition, separate writings and limits
Asset Acceptance LLC v. Newby, 2014 Ark. 280 — S016	Arkansas Supreme Court, June 19, 2014. Debt buyer failed to sufficiently establish the asserted agreement’s connection to the consumer.	Direct appeal affirmed; sanctions cross-appeal dismissed. Dissent noted. No merits ruling on the debt.
Jorja Trading v. Willis, 2020 Ark. 133 — S017	Arkansas Supreme Court, April 9, 2020. Rejected the challenged mutuality theories and applied actual nonwaiver/small-claims language.	Reversed/remanded; Court of Appeals opinion vacated. Brown concurrence; Wynne dissent joined by Baker/Hudson; Hart did not participate. Not abolition of every neutral mutuality defense.
Altice USA v. Runyan, 2023 Ark. App. 124 — S018	March 1, 2023. Assent established on invoice-link/payment/admission record; contractual scope and challenge target mattered.	Reversed/remanded. No universal statement/payment assent rule; guardianship facts not generalized.
Arkansas Kenworth v. Gaston, 2026 Ark. App. 286 — S019	May 6, 2026. Competing signature evidence created a genuine formation issue; trial route sustained.	Affirmed. Murphy dissent joined by Abramson. Timing/preservation limits matter; commercial truck-repair facts are not consumer-merits findings.
HPD v. TETRA, 2012 Ark. 408 — S020	Arkansas Supreme Court, November 1, 2012. Actual commercial contract and quoted construction-rule incorporation clearly delegated issues.	Reversed/remanded to compel; cross-appeal moot. Historical provider rule body not separately retrieved.
Westlake Services v. England, 2024 Ark. App. 271 — S021	April 24, 2024. Applied Jorja and expressly distinguished Morgan on actual contract/conduct and lack of a prejudice premise.	Reversed/remanded. Thyer concurred. Not a general rule that filing collection litigation never waives arbitration.
First Options v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 — S022	U.S. Supreme Court, May 22, 1995. Court independently decides arbitrability absent clear agreement to delegate; objection before arbitrator was not assent.	Unanimous affirmance. Actual nonsignatory posture and ordinary contract principles preserved.
Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 — S023	February 21, 2006. Whole-contract illegality challenge separated from arbitration-clause challenge.	Reversed/remanded. Thomas dissented; Alito did not participate. Footnote 1 reserves whether any agreement was concluded.
Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 — S024	June 21, 2010. Separately targeted delegation challenge required in the posture presented.	Reversed/remanded. Stevens dissent joined by Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor. Not a formation-by-assumption rule.
Henry Schein v. Archer & White, 586 U.S. 63 — S025	January 8, 2019. No “wholly groundless” exception to a valid delegation.	Unanimous vacatur/remand. Actual delegation existence left for further proceedings.
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 — S026	April 27, 2011. The California class-arbitration rule conflicted with the FAA.	Reversed/remanded. Thomas concurrence; Breyer dissent. Not invalidation of all unconscionability defenses.
Kindred Nursing v. Clark, 581 U.S. 246 — S027	May 15, 2017. Arbitration-specific clear-authority requirement could not disfavor arbitration formation.	Reversed in part, vacated in part, remanded. Thomas dissented; Gorsuch did not participate. Neutral agency rules remain.
Arthur Andersen v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 — S028	May 4, 2009. Traditional state-law nonsignatory theories can support enforcement and the addressed appeal route.	Reversed/remanded. Souter dissent joined by Roberts/Stevens. Actual estoppel entitlement not decided.
Green Tree v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 — S029	December 11, 2000. Speculative prohibitive-cost showing was insufficient; actual likelihood evidence required.	Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded. Ginsburg partial dissent. Historical dismissal/finality discussion read with Smith.
Morgan v. Sundance, 596 U.S. 411 — S030	May 23, 2022. Arbitration-specific prejudice requirement rejected.	Unanimous vacatur/remand. Ultimate waiver and other framework questions not finally decided.
Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 — S031	May 16, 2024. Requested § 3 stay required when statutory predicates met.	Unanimous reversal/remand. Independent dismissal grounds distinguished.
Coinbase v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736 — S032	June 23, 2023. Federal proceedings stay during qualifying arbitrability interlocutory appeal.	Reversed/remanded. Jackson dissent and joiners noted; not a state-court automatic-stay holding.
Coinbase v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143 — S033	May 23, 2024. Court resolves which agreement governs when contracts conflict about forum/delegation.	Unanimous affirmance; Gorsuch concurrence. Underlying state contract result not universally decided.
Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 — S034	March 31, 2022. No look-through jurisdiction for freestanding award applications.	Reversed/remanded; Breyer dissented. State application of FAA procedural sections left qualified.
Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, 608 U.S. ___ — S035	May 14, 2026. Jurisdiction over a live case stayed under § 3 continues for resulting confirmation/vacatur motions.	Unanimous affirmance. Distinct from freestanding Badgerow application.
Hall Street v. Mattel, 552 U.S. 576 — S036	March 25, 2008. Parties cannot expand FAA expedited review into general legal-error review.	Vacated/remanded. Separate dissents noted; other independent avenues not universally adjudicated.
Medicine Shoppe v. Turner Investments, 614 F.3d 485 — S037	Eighth Circuit, July 21, 2010. Applied statutory review limits after Hall Street.	Affirmed. Published commercial-franchise case; no independent manifest-disregard ground.

No complete subsequent-history or citator clearance is claimed.

G. Four controlled fictional models

All parties, documents, dates, events, balances and procedural conditions below are fictional. They do not establish actual eligibility, assent, enforceability, permission, service, timeliness or debt validity.

M01 — Online agreement, contested version, and delegation

Common hypothetical setting

A household account transaction is assumed to involve commerce. On February 3, 2026, the provider asserts that the consumer accepted “Version A.” No actual provider or account is identified.

Evidence/event	Qualifying-record branch	Adverse branch
Displayed terms	Archived Version A shows the actual arbitration and delegation terms available at the acceptance step.	Only a current webpage or a different later version exists.
Acceptance	Attributable record links the consumer’s affirmative act to Version A; access and ordinary formation requirements are assumed established.	Consumer specifically denies the act; identifiers or signature evidence conflict.
Authority/capacity	Competence and authority are stipulated for the model.	Representative authority or capacity is unsupported.
Opt-out	No qualifying opt-out occurred, expressly assumed.	A purported timely opt-out is supported by evidence; actual contract requirements must be applied.
Delegation	Clear text assigns specified gateway questions; no formation assumption is needed because the qualifying agreement is proved.	The proponent relies on delegation contained only in the disputed version.
Challenge	Consumer challenges only the entire underlying contract.	Consumer specifically challenges the delegation’s enforceability, or denies forming any agreement at all.

Decision-maker: The court must address the antecedent formation problem. If a valid delegation exists, a properly assigned scope/enforceability issue may go to the arbitrator. A targeted delegation challenge must be analyzed at that level.

Procedural consequence: Genuine evidence of disputed formation can require the applicable hearing/trial process. A screenshot is neither automatically sufficient nor automatically worthless. Denying compulsion for lack of proof is not a judgment that the underlying debt is invalid. C014–C032, C093.

M02 — Original creditor, assignee, and servicer

Stipulated chain

Party/document	Working branch	Missing-evidence branch
Creditor O’s agreement	Authentic agreement includes a proved successors/assigns provision covering the dispute.	Generic agreement not connected to this account.
O → A transfer, April 1, 2026	Operative assignment and account-level evidence actually transfer the pertinent rights.	Bill of sale references a missing or mismatched account schedule.
Servicer S, April 10	Actual authority to act for A is established to the extent asserted.	S merely sends collection communications; enforcement authority is unproved.
Nonsignatory theory	A specific recognized theory and its elements are proved.	“Affiliate,” “agent,” or “beneficiary” is asserted without supporting facts.

Limited principal ledger

Assume no interest or fees are modeled:

$2,400 opening principal−$200 actual credited consumer payment=$2,200$2,400\text{ opening principal}-$200\text{ actual credited consumer payment} =\boxed{$2,200}$2,400 opening principal−$200 actual credited consumer payment=$2,200Assume A paid O $150 for the account. That is transfer consideration:

Consumer credit from purchase price=$0\text{Consumer credit from purchase price}=\boxed{$0}Consumer credit from purchase price=$0The $150 is not deducted again from the consumer balance. The $2,200 arithmetic also does not prove A’s title, S’s authority, arbitrability, or collectibility.

A valid assignment may transfer an existing arbitration right; it cannot create an agreement the consumer never made. Existing defenses are not automatically extinguished by the sale. C035–C039, C094.

M03 — Litigation conduct, requested stay, and appeal

Alternative conduct histories

Date/event	Prompt-assertion branch	Potential-waiver branch
March 2, 2026	Lawsuit begins.	Same.
March 10	Party identifies the agreement, moves to compel, and expressly requests the applicable stay.	Party instead seeks merits discovery and judicial merits rulings.
Through August	Party consistently pursues the threshold arbitration question.	Party substantially litigates the same dispute and seeks arbitration only after adverse merits developments.
September 10	Court determines whether agreement/scope/waiver predicates are satisfied.	Same; actual conduct and governing standard matter.

There is no manufactured “six-month waiver deadline.” Morgan removes the special prejudice requirement, not the need for a fact-based analysis. Westlake does not make all prior collection litigation harmless.

Federal-court branch

Assume independent federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists.

If the court finds the dispute arbitrable and a party has requested a § 3 stay, Smith requires that stay rather than dismissal solely because all claims are arbitrable.
If compulsion is denied and a qualifying, timely § 16 appeal is taken on September 14, Bielski governs the federal proceedings pending that appeal, subject to its actual boundaries.
Timeliness of that appeal is stipulated, not calculated here.

Arkansas-court branch

Sections 207(f)–(g) supply the relevant motion/order stay structure. Section 228 and the state appeal rule supply the appeal route. No federal appellate-stay rule is silently applied to Arkansas state court.

Neither branch suspends every outside debt, response, limitation, garnishment or judgment clock merely because a motion was filed. C045–C058, C095.

M04 — Award notice, months versus days, and separate judgment/payment

Stipulated starting event

A valid signed award is made, filed, delivered and its notice actually received on Wednesday, April 1, 2026. All four events are deliberately made the same date to isolate the statutory units. The actual governing route must still be selected; these are alternatives, not cumulative instructions.

Arkansas ninety-day illustration

Exclude April 1 under the assumed applicable computation rule:

Segment	Days
April 2–30	29
May 1–31	31
June 1–30	30
Total	90

Conditional ordinary § 223/224 endpoint: Tuesday, June 30, 2026.

This is a filing calculation. Required notice/service and a sufficient statutory ground remain separate.

FAA three-month illustration

Three calendar months after April 1 is Wednesday, July 1, 2026.

The elapsed interval is 91 days, demonstrating why “three months” cannot be replaced with “ninety days.”

Section 12 requires service of notice within that period. A fictional motion filed June 30 but first served July 2 raises a distinct timeliness problem; filing inside the candidate period does not establish service compliance.

State fraud-discovery alternative

Assume qualifying procurement fraud was first known on May 1, and reasonable care would not have revealed it earlier:

30 days, May 2–31+30 days, June+30 days, July 1–30=9030\text{ days, May 2–31}+30\text{ days, June}+30\text{ days, July 1–30}=9030 days, May 2–31+30 days, June+30 days, July 1–30=90Conditional state endpoint: Thursday, July 30, 2026.

That state discovery rule is not imported into FAA § 12. Federal equitable-tolling and disputed-trigger questions remain held.

Other windows

State § 220’s arbitrator-correction route has a separate twenty-day motion-and-notice period and ten-day objection period. No provider-specific internal calendar is certified.
FAA § 9’s one-year anniversary from this assumed award date is Thursday, April 1, 2027. The section’s agreement, forum, notice and jurisdiction requirements still apply; the universal consequence of a later application is not resolved here.
A request for reconsideration does not automatically reset every court deadline. A qualifying modified award and the governing statute must be established.

All displayed main endpoints are weekdays. No local closure, special holiday, service-day addition, electronic cutoff, or tolling extension is assumed.

Amount, judgment, and cash

In a separate uncontested-confirmation branch, assume the award is $1,800, no interest or costs are modeled, and a competent court properly enters a $1,800 judgment on May 18.

Event	Award/judgment amount	Actual cash credit
Award issued	$1,800	$0
Judgment entered	$1,800	$0
Actual lawful payment credited June 1	—	$300
Remaining modeled judgment	$1,500	—

1,800−300=1,5001,800-300=\boxed{1,500}1,800−300=1,500Confirmation is not cash payment, and a proposed payment is not an actual credit. No interest rate or collection method is approved. C066–C087, C096.

H. Twelve additional fictional postures

Posture	Fictional facts	Rule/stage/consequence and gap
P01 — Consumer versus business purpose	One agreement finances household services; another concerns a sole proprietor’s business.	Purpose alone does not decide FAA or state-act coverage. Actual agreement, commerce and exclusions remain necessary. C001–C005, C088.
P02 — Missing clause	Collector produces statements but no connected arbitration terms.	Formation remains unproved; Newby is relevant. No automatic merits victory. C014–C018.
P03 — Authentic electronic record	Complete version, attributable acceptance and access are established.	Electronic form is not inherently invalid; neutral formation and defense analysis still applies. C016–C020.
P04 — Change or opt-out	Later terms add arbitration; consumer asserts a valid opt-out.	Prove change authority, notice, applicable version and actual opt-out event. No universal deadline invented. C021.
P05 — Delegation-specific cost challenge	Consumer identifies costs of deciding arbitrability itself, not merely total case cost.	Correct challenge target matters; likely actual burden must be evidenced. C025, C029–C030.
P06 — Generic AAA reference	Agreement says only “AAA rules,” with no established dated rule set.	Do not substitute current consumer rules for the actual incorporated body. C033–C034.
P07 — Servicer as nonsignatory	Servicer lacks proved enforcement authority.	Agency or other theory must be established; label alone insufficient. C035–C038.
P08 — Broad nonwaiver clause	Party litigates merits extensively despite a nonwaiver clause.	Clause and conduct both matter; no automatic no-waiver outcome. C051–C053.
P09 — Stay requested	Federal party requests § 3 stay; all claims are found arbitrable.	Smith controls the specified stay-versus-dismissal issue; independent jurisdiction must exist. C046.
P10 — State interlocutory appeal	Arkansas court denies compulsion.	Apply state appeal categories and actual state stay procedure, not Bielski automatically. C057–C058.
P11 — Notice-defective award	Recipient learns of an award without proof of proper initiation or award notice.	Examine statutory prejudice, objection, receipt and challenge grounds; no automatic voidness or expired-clock finding. C059, C068–C070, C083.
P12 — Special sector or foreign/tribal forum	Agreement concerns a protected special category or foreign/tribal proceeding.	FAA chapters, federal exceptions, sovereignty, treaty and state exclusions require separate authority. C003, C005, C097–C098.

I. Complete source and access register

Register conventions

All substantive reads and attempts below occurred October 27, 2026, Pacific and UTC. Exact individual source-opening times are unknown.

P: official primary enactment, statute, court opinion, or official rule compilation.
R: actual primary judicial or rule text reproduced by a nonofficial host.
M: secondary statutory codification.
G: provider guidance/index.
F: failed or materially incomplete access.

The Arkansas Code mirrors do not establish complete October 2026 authentication. The federal OLRC pages displayed laws through Public Law 119-124, October 15, 2026. Grouped sections and repeated URLs are not independent corroborating authorities.

I1. Statutes, rules, and narrow supporting law

Source ID	Issuer/title/full literal HTTPS URL	Actual reading, version/effect and limits
S_AR-P14-S001	Arkansas General Assembly, Act 695 of 2011. https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=%2FACTS%2F2011%2FPublic%2FACT695.pdf	P: material new definitions, transition, agreement, court process, appointment/hearing, award/review and savings clauses. Images inspected at printed3/PDF2, 4/PDF3, 21/PDF20, 22/PDF21, 24/PDF23 and25/PDF24. Approved March24,2011; exact default commencement not independently established. Old strike-through text not treated as operative.
S_AR-P14-S002	§§16-108-201–204. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-201/ ; https://codes.findlaw.com/ar/title-16-practice-procedure-and-courts/ar-code-sect-16-108-202/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-203/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-204/	M: material definitions, notice, transition and nonwaivable provisions. Justia2025; FindLaw §202 dated March28,2024. §203’s July27,2011 date is codified text, not approval date.
S_AR-P14-S003	§§16-108-205–209. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-205/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-206/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-207/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-208/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-209/	M,2025: complete material motion, decision-maker, stay, provisional-relief and initiation bodies. Selected enactment support S001; full later chain held.
S_AR-P14-S004	§§16-108-211,212,215,216. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-211/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-212/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-215/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-216/	M,2025: appointment, disclosure, hearing/summary-disposition and representation. Full arbitral discovery/evidence regime not investigated.
S_AR-P14-S005	§§16-108-219–221. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-219/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-220/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-221/	M,2025: award, correction, remedies/costs and requested factual/legal basis. Not generic uniform-act wording substituted for Arkansas text.
S_AR-P14-S006	§§16-108-222–225. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-222/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-223/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-224/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-225/	M,2025: full material confirmation, six vacatur grounds, filing periods, rehearing, modification and court judgment/cost provisions. S001 images provide primary enactment comparison.
S_AR-P14-S007	§§16-108-226–228. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-226/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-227/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-228/	M,2025: court jurisdiction, county venue and appeal categories. No actual forum selected.
S_AR-P14-S008	§§16-108-230,233 and index. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-230/ ; https://codes.findlaw.com/ar/title-16-practice-procedure-and-courts/ar-code-sect-16-108-233/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/	M: E-SIGN and savings/exclusions; §233 FindLaw March28,2024. Index supports structure only. Codified numbering differs from original act.
S_AR-P14-S009	OLRC, 9 USC1–6. 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/	P: material complete definitions/exclusion, written-commerce agreement, stay, petition/notice/trial, appointment and motion provisions. Display through October15,2026.
S_AR-P14-S010	9 USC9–13. https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s9/ ; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s10/ ; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s11/ ; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s12/ ; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s13/	P: complete material award, grounds, service/time and judgment-document provisions. Exact legacy resident/nonresident service wording retained; full modern service harmonization held.
S_AR-P14-S011	9 USC16,401,402. https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s16/ ; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s401/ ; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/402	P for16/401; R for402 after official failures. Material appeal categories and Chapter4 boundary, including applicability to specified post-March3,2022 disputes/claims. No special-sector factual application.
S_AR-P14-S012	Arkansas UETA §§25-32-105,107,109. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-25/chapter-32/section-25-32-105/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-25/chapter-32/section-25-32-107/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-25/chapter-32/section-25-32-109/	M,2025: agreement/context, electronic recognition and attribution. Original act/full scope/current chain not reconstructed; no broad electronic-compliance certificate.
S_AR-P14-S013	§§4-58-102,105. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-4/subtitle-5/chapter-58/section-4-58-102/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-4/subtitle-5/chapter-58/section-4-58-105/	M,2025: narrow assignability and defense-preservation bodies, including §105(b)(3). Full ownership and UCC framework deferred.
S_AR-P14-S014	Arkansas Civil Rule6, Appellate Civil Rule2, Supreme Court/Court of Appeals Rule5-2. https://www.courtrules.net/arkansas/arkansas-civil-procedure/rule-6 ; https://www.courtrules.net/arkansas/arkansas-appellate-civil/rule-2 ; https://www.courtrules.net/arkansas/arkansas-supreme-court/rule-5-2	R: computation, arbitration appeal reference and publication/citation provisions. Publisher date not promulgation; full official chain and local cutoff held.
S_AR-P14-S015	U.S. Courts/GPO, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, December1,2025 edition. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf	P: Rule6(a), material related text, printed12–14/PDF30–32; Rule81(a)(6)(B), printed100/PDF118. Images PDF30 and118 inspected. Limited reading, not entire142-page book.

I2. Published Arkansas opinions

Source ID	Court/title/full literal HTTPS URL	Actual material read and pinpoint
S_AR-P14-S016	Asset Acceptance v. Newby. https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/2014/cv-13-319.html ; PDF https://cases.justia.com/arkansas/supreme-court/2014-cv-13-319.pdf?ts=1403190113	R: majority formation/disposition, printed7–11/PDF6–10; image printed10/PDF9. June19,2014. Publisher summary’s sanctions characterization not adopted.
S_AR-P14-S017	Jorja Trading v. Willis. https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/2020/cv-18-1012.html ; PDF https://cases.justia.com/arkansas/supreme-court/2020-cv-18-1012.pdf?ts=1586444459	R: majority mutuality/waiver, printed4–10; image printed6/PDF5. April9,2020. Concurrence/dissent identified; not merged with majority.
S_AR-P14-S018	Altice USA v. Runyan. https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/court-of-appeals/2023/cv-22-236.html ; PDF https://cases.justia.com/arkansas/court-of-appeals/2023-cv-22-236.pdf?ts=1677686950	R: majority formation/scope/challenge analysis, printed9–13/PDF8–12; image printed9/PDF8. March1,2023. Quoted Johnson not separately read.
S_AR-P14-S019	Arkansas Kenworth v. Gaston. https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/court-of-appeals/2026/cv-25-108.html ; PDF https://cases.justia.com/arkansas/court-of-appeals/2026-cv-25-108.pdf?ts=1778080177	R: majority printed6–11/PDF5–10; image printed8/PDF7; material dissent/preservation discussion. May6,2026. Not a coercion or final-assent holding.
S_AR-P14-S020	HPD v. TETRA. https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/2012/11-1299.html ; PDF https://cases.justia.com/arkansas/supreme-court/11-1299.pdf?ts=1462300329	R: majority printed7–12/PDF6–11; image printed12/PDF11. November1,2012. AAA Construction rules quoted in opinion, not independently opened.
S_AR-P14-S021	Westlake Services v. England. https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/court-of-appeals/2024/cv-22-756.html ; PDF https://cases.justia.com/arkansas/court-of-appeals/2024-cv-22-756.pdf?ts=1713971305	R: majority mutuality/waiver, printed12–18/PDF11–17; image printed17/PDF16. April24,2024. Thyer concurrence identified; full separate-writing synthesis not claimed.

I3. Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit opinions

Source ID	Court/title/full literal HTTPS URL	Actual material read and page limits
S_AR-P14-S022	First Options, 514US938. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-514/pdf/USREPORTS-514-938.pdf	P: majority942–947/PDF4–9; image944/PDF6. May22,1995.
S_AR-P14-S023	Buckeye, 546US440. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-546/pdf/USREPORTS-546-440.pdf	P: majority443–449/PDF3–9, including footnote1; image444/PDF4. February21,2006.
S_AR-P14-S024	Rent-A-Center, 561US63. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-561/pdf/USREPORTS-561-63.pdf	P: majority67–76/PDF4–13 and material formation qualification; image70/PDF7. June21,2010.
S_AR-P14-S025	Henry Schein. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf	P: majority printed3–8/PDF4–9; image printed7/PDF8. January8,2019.
S_AR-P14-S026	Concepcion, 563US333. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-563/pdf/USREPORTS-563-333.pdf	P: material majority339–352/PDF6–19; image340/PDF7. April27,2011. Full class-waiver doctrine not separately investigated.
S_AR-P14-S027	Kindred Nursing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-32_o7jp.pdf	P: material majority printed4–10/PDF6–12; image printed7/PDF9. May15,2017.
S_AR-P14-S028	Arthur Andersen, 556US624. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-556/pdf/USREPORTS-556-624.pdf	P: majority629–632/PDF5–8; image630/PDF6. May4,2009.
S_AR-P14-S029	Green Tree, 531US79. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-531/pdf/USREPORTS-531-79.pdf	P: material majority89–92/PDF10–13; image91/PDF12. December11,2000.
S_AR-P14-S030	Morgan. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf	P: majority printed4–7/PDF5–8; image printed6/PDF7. May23,2022.
S_AR-P14-S031	Smith v. Spizzirri. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf	P: majority printed3–6/PDF4–7, including independent-dismissal qualification; image printed3/PDF4. May16,2024.
S_AR-P14-S032	Coinbase v. Bielski. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf	P: material majority printed1–10/PDF3–12; image printed2/PDF4. June23,2023. Separate dissent identified, not fully analyzed.
S_AR-P14-S033	Coinbase v. Suski. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf	P: majority printed1–8/PDF2–9; image printed8/PDF9. May23,2024.
S_AR-P14-S034	Badgerow. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1143_m6hn.pdf	P: material majority printed1–16/PDF3–18, including footnote2; image printed5/PDF7. March31,2022.
S_AR-P14-S035	Jules. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-83_3e04.pdf	P: material majority printed1–16/PDF4–19; core printed7–10 and15–16; images printed7/PDF10 and16/PDF19. May14,2026, unanimous affirmance.
S_AR-P14-S036	Hall Street, 552US576. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-552/pdf/USREPORTS-552-576.pdf	P: material majority584–592/PDF8–16; image586/PDF10. March25,2008.
S_AR-P14-S037	Eighth Circuit, Medicine Shoppe. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/10/07/092179P.pdf	P: published six-page majority, especially printed4–6/PDF3–5; image printed6/PDF5. July21,2010.

I4. Provider materials and failed access

Source ID	Exact routes	Actual status and resulting hold
S_AR-P14-S038	AAA index https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/ ; consumer page https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/ ; attempted rules https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Consumer_Rules_Web.pdf ; attempted schedule https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Consumer_Fee_Schedule.pdf	G/F: index and generic consumer page read. Complete operative rules/schedule not obtained; rules PDF inaccessible, fee route redirected to generic page. No exact consumer fee amount, incorporated historical version, waiver criterion, or accepted form certified.
S_AR-P14-S039	Official/current-body failures listed below	F: bounded alternatives disclosed; no absence-of-law or complete-currentness inference.

S039 — Failed routes and bounded recoveries

Exact route	Result / alternative
https://www.arcourts.gov/rules-and-administrative-orders	404; reproduced rule text used with limits.
https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/en/nav.do	403; published Arkansas opinion republications used.
https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-202/	Body unavailable; FindLaw’s dated §202 body read.
https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-233/	Body unavailable; FindLaw’s dated §233 body read.
https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s402/ ; https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title9-section402&num=0&edition=prelim	Official body inaccessible/404; Cornell statutory reproduction used and labeled.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1143_1an2.pdf	Incorrect/unavailable Badgerow route; corrected official route in S034 succeeded.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf	Concepcion route returned404; official U.S. Reports body S026 succeeded.
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure-december-1-2025_0.pdf	Initial file route unavailable; official landing-page link supplied the successful S015 PDF.

No security bypass, private docket/status search, account, filing, contact, or API was used.

J. Atomic claim register

Types: T direct text; H published holding; I reasoned inference; C conditional model; G unresolved evidence/application gap. “Verified” means the stated body was read, not complete current-law certification.

J1. Regime, formation, and delegation

Claim ID	Actor/stage/predicate	Required step or consequence	Source/pinpoint; type/limit
S_AR-P14-C001	State regime selected	Act695 supplies revised architecture; approval differs from commencement.	S001; T/G.
C002	Agreement date assessed	Apply §203 date and earlier-agreement record-consent rule.	S002§203(a)–(b); T, official date chain partial.
C003	State exclusion asserted	Apply three §233 exclusions and savings clause; no general consumer exclusion.	S008§233; S001; T.
C004	FAA invoked	Prove written covered agreement and commerce predicates.	S009§§1–2; T.
C005	Employment exception asserted	§1 is specific, not generic consumer immunity.	S009§1; T, employment scope deferred.
C006	State act applied to FAA agreement	Address federal substantive preemption; no automatic all-procedure replacement.	S009§2; S026–S027; T/H.
C007	Contract defense asserted	Apply neutral defenses, not arbitration-specific hostility.	S009§2; S026–S027; T/H.
C008	Federal forum invoked	FAA alone does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction.	S034–S035; H.
C009	§4 petition filed federally	Establish its independent-jurisdiction/look-through predicates.	S009§4; S034; T/H.
C010	Standalone award motion	No §4-style look-through under Badgerow.	S034; H.
C011	Award motion in stayed federal case	Jules preserves jurisdiction over resulting award motions on its predicates.	S035 pp.7–10,15–16; H.
C012	Arkansas court/county selected	Apply §§226–227 and pending-case rule; no federal-jurisdiction creation.	S007; S003§207(e); T/I.
C013	Contract varies act	Respect §204’s nonwaivable and limited-variation provisions.	S002§204; T.
C014	Proponent seeks compulsion	Establish actual agreement with the relevant party.	S016 pp.7–11; S003§207; H/T.
C015	Formation assessed	Competence, subject, consideration, assent and obligations matter.	S017 pp.3–6; H.
C016	Electronic agreement asserted	Electronic recognition does not prove attribution or agreement.	S012§§105,107,109; T/I.
C017	Screenshot/checkbox supplied	Connect act, terms, version, access and person.	S016,S018–S019; I, actual proof absent.
C018	Generic card agreement offered	Newby rejected insufficient consumer connection.	S016; H.
C019	Invoice/payment assent argued	Runyan’s actual references/admissions supported assent.	S018 pp.9–13; H, not universal rule.
C020	Signature genuinely disputed	Kenworth supports trial on its evidentiary/preservation record.	S019 pp.6–11; H.
C021	Change/opt-out/survival asserted	Actual terms, notice, version and scope must be established.	S018; S003§206; I/G.
C022	Mutuality challenged	Jorja did not require identical remedies; concurrence is not majority abolition.	S017 pp.4–10; H.
C023	Class/public-policy defense used	Concepcion addresses the particular obstructive state rule, not all defenses.	S026 at339–352; H.
C024	Representative authority disputed	Neutral agency rules remain; arbitration-only authority rule barred.	S027 pp.4–10; H.
C025	Cost barrier claimed	Establish likely actual prohibitive costs; speculation insufficient.	S029 at89–92; H.
C026	Arbitrability delegation alleged	Court default and clear-and-unmistakable test apply.	S022 at942–947; H.
C027	Entire contract challenged	Buckeye’s separability rule differs from no-agreement question.	S023 at443–449 &fn1; H.
C028	Arbitration clause challenged	Identify targeted clause defense and any valid delegation.	S023–S024; H.
C029	Delegation invoked	Prove delegation agreement rather than assume it.	S022,S024; H/I.
C030	Delegation itself challenged	Specific challenge must be addressed at that level.	S024 at70–74; H.
C031	Delegated argument seems weak	No wholly-groundless exception once valid delegation applies.	S025 pp.3–8; H.
C032	Two contracts conflict	Court decides antecedent governing-contract question under Suski.	S033 pp.5–8; H.
C033	Rule incorporation relied on	HPD depended on actual commercial text and quoted construction rules.	S020 pp.7–12; H.
C034	Current provider page substituted	Exact incorporated dated rule body remains necessary and held.	S020,S038; G.

J2. Parties, procedure, waiver, and stays

Claim ID	Actor/stage/predicate	Required step or consequence	Source/pinpoint; type/limit
C035	Assignee seeks enforcement	Establish transferred contractual right and this agreement/account.	S013; S016; T/I.
C036	Nonsignatory invokes arbitration	Traditional state-law theory may apply, but elements must be proved.	S028 at629–632; H.
C037	Servicer/affiliate invokes clause	Actual authority/theory, not label, required.	S028; I/G.
C038	Assignment affects defenses	Applicable defense-preservation language remains relevant.	S013§105(b)(3); T, full assignment law held.
C039	Arbitration result generalized	Agreement validity does not decide debt title/amount/merits.	S003§207(d); T/I.
C040	State judicial relief requested	Motion and appropriate initial/subsequent notice/service.	S003§205; T.
C041	Agreement/refusal disputed	Court summarily decides under §207; no compulsion without enforceable agreement.	S003§207(a)–(d); T.
C042	Federal §4 petitioner	Establish aggrievement, refusal, agreement, jurisdiction and forum predicates.	S009§4; T.
C043	§4 notice given	At least five days’ written notice through specified procedure.	S009§4; S015Rule81; T, no live calendar.
C044	Genuine §4 issue raised	Trial/jury route has statutory party and demand conditions.	S009§4; S019; T/H.
C045	State stay requested/compulsion ordered	Apply §207(f) and(g), including severability conditions.	S003§207; T.
C046	Federal §3 stay requested	Smith requires stay rather than dismissal solely for arbitrability.	S009§3; S031; T/H.
C047	Court arbitrability question pending	Arbitration may proceed under §206(d) unless court orders otherwise.	S003§206(d); T.
C048	Provisional relief needed	§208 predicates and nonwaiver qualification apply.	S003§208; T.
C049	Appointment mechanism fails	Apply agreed/statutory appointment route and actual conditions.	S009§5; S004§211; T.
C050	Neutrality/disclosure questioned	Apply continuing disclosure and objection/vacatur provisions.	S004§212; T.
C051	Litigation waiver alleged	No arbitration-specific prejudice requirement under Morgan.	S030 pp.4–7; H.
C052	Arkansas follow-on invoked	Westlake expressly considered Morgan and distinguished prejudice issue.	S021 pp.16–18; H.
C053	Contract reserves court remedy	Jorja/Westlake are fact- and contract-specific, not universal immunity.	S017,S021; H/I.
C054	Motion or delay occurs	No fixed waiver deadline or universal clock suspension established.	S030,S003; I/G.
C055	Federal appeal proposed	Apply §16’s actual adverse-order/final/interlocutory categories.	S011§16; T.
C056	Qualifying federal denial appeal	Bielski supplies federal pending-appeal stay.	S032; H, state application not assumed.
C057	State arbitration order appealed	Apply §228 and Appellate2(a)(12).	S007§228; S014; T.
C058	State automatic appellate stay claimed	No universal state rule established from Bielski.	S032/S014; G.

J3. Arbitration process and award review

Claim ID	Actor/stage/predicate	Required step or consequence	Source/pinpoint; type/limit
C059	Arbitration initiated	Record notice, agreed/default method and controversy/remedy content.	S003§209; S002§202; T.
C060	Hearing/summary disposition	Apply notice, reasonable response, evidence and hearing rights.	S004§215; T.
C061	Party wants counsel	§216 and nonwaiver framework apply.	S004§216; S002§204; T.
C062	Award rendered	Signed/authenticated record, notice and timing requirements.	S005§219; T.
C063	Reasoned basis requested	Timely pre-notice request triggers §221(e).	S005§221(e); T.
C064	Damages/fees/costs awarded	Establish statute/agreement/evidentiary predicates.	S005§221; S006§225; T.
C065	Consumer provider fee claimed	Exact incorporated schedule and actual cost facts not established.	S029,S038; G.
C066	Arbitrator correction sought	Twenty-day motion/notice and ten-day objection routes, specific grounds.	S005§220; T.
C067	State confirmation requested	Shall confirm subject to statutory exceptions; no express §222 filing limit.	S006§222; T, not perpetual-time finding.
C068	State vacatur sought	Establish one of six §223(a) grounds.	S006§223(a); T.
C069	No agreement/improper notice alleged	Apply actual participation/objection and prejudice qualifications.	S006§223(a)(5)–(6); T.
C070	State ordinary vacatur motion	File within90days from specified receipt event.	S006§223(b); T.
C071	State procurement fraud/corruption alleged	Discovery/reasonable-care ninety-day trigger applies on its predicates.	S006§223(b); T.
C072	State modification sought	Ninety-day receipt-based motion; three limited grounds.	S006§224; T.
C073	State award vacated	Rehearing availability and different-arbitrator conditions apply.	S006§223(c)–(d); T.
C074	Court enters state judgment	§225 applies; costs/fees require their conditions.	S006§225; T.
C075	FAA confirmation sought	§9 agreement, court, one-year text and statutory-exception predicates.	S010§9; T, beyond-year consequence held.
C076	FAA award motion served	Apply actual §9/12 notice text and governing procedural interpretation.	S010; S015; T/G.
C077	FAA award challenged	§10 grounds, not generic dissatisfaction.	S010§10(a); T.
C078	FAA correction requested	§11’s three limited grounds.	S010§11; T.
C079	FAA vacatur/correction notice	Serve within three months after filed/delivered event.	S010§12; T, not90days.
C080	FAA judgment entered	§13 required papers and judgment effect apply.	S010§13; T.
C081	Expanded legal-error review requested	HallStreet limits the FAA expedited route.	S036 at584–592; H.
C082	Manifest disregard asserted independently	MedicineShoppe rejects it as extra FAA ground.	S037 pp.4–6; H.
C083	Participation/notice used as waiver	Apply specific statute; no universal all-issue waiver.	S003§209; S004§215; S006§223; T/I.
C084	Award issued or funds held	Not automatically levy, payment or new lawful fee/interest entitlement.	S006§225; S010§13; I/G.
C085	Reconsideration/corrected award/tolling	Qualifying modified award differs from any request; equitable issues held.	S005§220; S006§223–224; S010§12; T/G.

J4. Computation, models, and retained limits

Claim ID	Predicate	Consequence	Source/pinpoint; type/limit
C086	Court period computed	Apply actual governing computation rule; do not add service days indiscriminately.	S014Rule6; S015Rule6(a),81(a)(6); T.
C087	FAA procedure applied in state court	Badgerow preserves a qualification; selected Arkansas cases do not settle every procedural issue.	S034 fn2; S019; H/G.
C088	Consumer/business label used	Neither label alone decides all arbitration predicates.	S002–S009; T/I.
C089	Waiver/defense finding requested	Actual facts and proper challenge target remain necessary.	S022–S030; G.
C090	Complete treatment claimed	No full citator or absence-of-authority certificate.	Case register; G.
C091	Current statute/rule certified	Selected enactment and reproductions leave integrated-chain gaps.	S001–S015,S039; G.
C092	Electronic-compliance conclusion	Narrow recognition reading is not full agreement/E-SIGN certification.	S008§230; S012; G.
C093	M01 applied	Authenticity/version/delegation branches remain conditional.	M01; C014–C032; C.
C094	M02 applied	Transfer price, actual credit and enforcement rights separated.	M02; C035–C039; C.
C095	M03 applied	No fixed waiver deadline; requested federal/state stay routes distinguished.	M03; C045–C058; C.
C096	M04 applied	Ninety days, three months, service, filing and cash credit remain distinct.	M04; C066–C087; C.
C097	Special statutory exception invoked	Chapter4 election/timing/court decision and other sector predicates required.	S011§§401–402; T/G.
C098	Local/tribal/foreign application	Particular law, forum and facts remain unresearched.	Scope; G.
C099	Costs assumed zero or capped	No complete government/provider cost schedule verified.	S038; G.
C100	Earlier scope cited	Broad reviewed remainder authorizes this focus, not prior arbitration acceptance.	Supplied scope; G.

K. Granular coverage and remaining investigations

K1. Core coverage — 30 rows

Row	Requested issue	Resolved portion / claims	Exact remaining evidence or action
K01	State act and transition	Act695 and current displayed structure; C001–C003	Complete official integrated Code and commencement/recodification chain.
K02	State exclusions	Three categories read; C003	Actual facts and governing federal preemption, especially insurance.
K03	FAA coverage	Writing/commerce and exceptions; C004–C007	Actual transaction and agreement.
K04	Federal jurisdiction	Badgerow/Jules distinctions; C008–C011	Actual pending case, jurisdictional allegations and court status.
K05	State court/venue	§§205/207/226/227; C012,C040–C041	Actual court competence and county predicates.
K06	Formation elements/burden	Newby/Jorja and statutory showing	Actual terms, parties, consideration, assent and authority.
K07	Electronic assent/version	UETA and contrasting cases; C016–C020	Actual archive, attribution, presentation and access.
K08	Modification/opt-out/survival	Contract-specific inquiry; C021	Actual clause, notices, event and effective version.
K09	Neutral defenses/mutuality	Federal/state holdings; C022–C025	Specific defense and actual evidentiary record.
K10	Cost/access barrier	GreenTree burden; C025,C065	Applicable fee schedule, likely costs and available waivers.
K11	Formation versus whole-contract validity	FirstOptions/Buckeye; C026–C028	Correct challenge and actual agreement evidence.
K12	Delegation-specific challenge	Rent-A-Center/Schein; C029–C031	Actual delegation text and targeted defense.
K13	Conflicting contracts	Suski; C032	Versions, integration, supersession and actual choice-of-law facts.
K14	Institutional incorporation	HPD read; C033–C034	Exact incorporated dated rules and consumer-context construction.
K15	Assignee rights	Statutory boundary and Newby; C035	Actual transfer, account inclusion and transferred right.
K16	Nonsignatory/servicer	Carlisle framework; C036–C038	Specific state-law theory and authority evidence.
K17	Motion/notice/service	State205/207 and FAA4/6; C040–C044	Actual case posture and compliant notice/service.
K18	Formation hearing/trial	FAA4/Kenworth; C044	Genuine dispute, proof, jury demand and preservation.
K19	Stay pending decision/compulsion	§§206–208/Smith; C045–C048	Actual motion, predicates and order.
K20	Appointment/disclosure	FAA5/state211–212; C049–C050	Actual selection failure, neutrality and disclosures.
K21	Waiver after Morgan	Morgan/Westlake; C051–C054	Actual litigation conduct and governing framework.
K22	Federal/state appeals	§16/§228/Bielski; C055–C058	Actual appeal category, finality, timeliness and state stay authority.
K23	Arbitral notice/hearing	§§209/215/216; C059–C061	Actual initiation, hearing and objections.
K24	Award/remedies/costs	§§219/221; C062–C065	Actual signed award, request, law/agreement and provider rules.
K25	Arbitrator correction	§220; C066	Actual notice, motion, grounds and applicable internal computation.
K26	State confirmation/vacatur/modification	§§222–225; C067–C074	Actual receipt, ground, prejudice, participation and filing.
K27	FAA award route	§§9–13; C075–C080	Actual jurisdiction, agreement, service and filed/delivered trigger.
K28	Review standard	HallStreet/MedicineShoppe; C081–C082	Actual statutory ground; full later treatment.
K29	Timing/tolling/award judgment	Distinctions preserved; C083–C087	Local service, equitable issues, corrected award and actual order.
K30	Actual permission/merits	Boundaries preserved; C039,C084,C088–C100	No actual agreement, debt, status, award or payment facts supplied.

K2. Workflow coverage — 10 rows

Row	Actor/event	Supported step	Remaining facts
W01	Party identifies regime	Date, commerce, state transition and exclusion analysis.	Actual agreement and transaction.
W02	Proponent establishes agreement	Connect terms/version to assent and authority.	Authentic records and competing evidence.
W03	Party identifies challenge	Separate formation, whole contract, clause and delegation.	Exact pleading/argument and evidence.
W04	Assignee/nonsignatory invokes right	Prove transfer or applicable theory.	Actual chain and authority.
W05	Court receives motion	Correct court, notice, service and showing.	Actual jurisdiction and pending case.
W06	Court resolves disputed formation	Applicable hearing/trial and preservation.	Actual genuine issue and demand.
W07	Stay/appeal considered	Apply federal or state route, not both by assumption.	Actual order and appeal predicates.
W08	Arbitration proceeds	Proper notice, appointment, disclosure and hearing.	Actual provider rules and events.
W09	Award challenged or confirmed	Correct ground, event, unit, filing/service and court.	Actual award, receipt and jurisdiction.
W10	Judgment/payment follows	Separate award, judgment and actual credit.	Actual lawful order and remittance.

K3. Currentness and source gaps — 8 rows

Row	Authority family	Status	Exact next evidence
Q01	Act695/current Code	Official act plus dated mirrors	Complete current official §§201–233 and recodification chain.
Q02	Transition date	July27,2011 codified date read	Primary general commencement evidence if date is disputed.
Q03	FAA current text	OLRC through October15,2026	Any material later enactment; actual special-sector predicates.
Q04	State procedural rules	Reproductions and current cases	Official consolidated rules and local service/filing/stay requirements.
Q05	Federal procedure	Official December2025 compilation	Applicable later amendments/local rules and actual court calendar.
Q06	Provider rules/fees	Generic pages only	Exact incorporated dated rules and operative fee/waiver schedule.
Q07	Cases	Twenty-two material published opinions	Complete current citator and responsive later applications.
Q08	Award edge cases	Statutory text and controlling review cases	Jurisdiction-specific beyond-one-year, tolling, service and corrected-award construction.

K4. Models — 4 rows

Row	Completed analysis	Remaining legal predicates
M01	Online version/assent/delegation alternatives	Authentic actual record and correct challenge target.
M02	Transfer/servicer rights and principal credit	Actual assignment, authority and contract scope.
M03	Litigation conduct, requested stay and appeal	Actual waiver evidence, court jurisdiction and orders.
M04	Months/days, filing/service and payment	Actual trigger, method, ground, court and applicable calendar.

K5. Additional holds — 8 rows

Hold	Exact unresolved matter
H01	Actual agreement/version, assent, capacity, authority and transaction purpose.
H02	Actual opt-out, modification, survival and conflicting-contract effect.
H03	Exact delegation, incorporated provider rule and challenge-specific defense.
H04	Actual assignee/nonsignatory/servicer rights and account connection.
H05	Actual costs, allocation, access barriers and provider waiver procedures.
H06	Actual litigation conduct, stay request, court order and appeal category.
H07	Actual award, notice, delivery, participation, ground and service evidence.
H08	Complete later-law/citator, local-calendar, equitable and jurisdictional treatment.

K6. Territorial and actual-record holds — 6 rows

Row	Area	Remaining inquiry
T01	Arkansas counties/court divisions	Actual competent court, county and adopted local procedure. No county-practice inventory supplied.
T02	Interstate agreement	Choice of law, commerce, forum and party contacts.
T03	Foreign arbitration	FAA Chapters2/3, treaty, seat, service and enforcement.
T04	Tribal nexus	Sovereign law, jurisdiction, immunity and actual contracting authority.
T05	Federal/state interaction	Proper jurisdiction and procedural regime at each stage.
T06	Actual records/status	No private agreement, account, payment, award, docket or credential examined.

K7. Deferred families — 9 rows

Row	Family	Remaining scope
D01	Provider/CSO/CROA/licensing/fees	No permission or prior-pass conclusion adopted.
D02	Collection communications/validation	Separate conduct and disclosure analysis.
D03	Full debt ownership/merits/evidence	Only necessary enforcement-right distinction addressed.
D04	General venue/service/default/vacatur	No general civil-procedure dossier or live response deadline.
D05	Limitations/revival/judgment interest	No clock, rate or renewal conclusion imported.
D06	Wage/bank/property/homestead	No enforcement/exemption investigation.
D07	Secured/military/insurance/bankruptcy sectors	Boundaries only; full special regimes held.
D08	Full arbitration administration/remedies	Detailed discovery, class procedure, damages, sanctions and complete provider policies deferred.
D09	State/parent acceptance	All broader local, tribal, contract and parent requirements remain open.

K8. Separate scope crosswalk — 3 rows

Documented foundation	PASS-14 contribution	What is not accepted
Reviewed PASS-01 preserves contracts, funds, bonds, remedies, limitations, secured-sector, local and tribal gaps; agreements and civil-remedies work remained open.	Narrows that broad remainder to this arbitration gateway.	No invented earlier exact arbitration row.
Authorized Arkansas parent expressly requires arbitration within the litigation/judgment dimension.	Supplies formation, delegation, transfer, enforcement, waiver, stay, award and appeal distinctions.	Not acceptance of the entire court/contract dimension.
Separate scoped prior reviews and saved unreviewed passes	Preserves their raw provenance without importing their legal conclusions.	No full-state, parent, A066, A097 or A098 acceptance.

L. Researcher self-check

The principal current developments and distinctions verified here are:

The 2026 Arkansas signature-dispute decision, with its evidence and preservation limits.
Arkansas’s 2024 discussion of Morgan, rather than an obsolete universal prejudice prerequisite.
Smith’s requested-stay rule and the separation of federal and state appellate stays.
Jules’s May 2026 jurisdiction holding, distinguished from freestanding Badgerow applications.
The separate ninety-day filing, three-month service, and arbitrator-correction mechanisms.
The unresolved exact provider-rule and fee-schedule evidence, rather than a fabricated consumer cap or incorporation conclusion.

Counts: 39 source/access groups; 100 atomic claims; 22 published-case entries—6 Arkansas, 15 U.S. Supreme Court, and 1 Eighth Circuit; 4 worked models; 12 additional fictional postures; 30 core-coverage rows; 10 workflow rows; 8 currentness rows; 4 model rows; 8 additional holds; 6 territorial/actual-record rows; 9 deferred-family rows; and 3 separate scope-crosswalk rows. Repeated URLs, grouped sections, and overlapping hold summaries are not counted as independent corroborating authorities or accepted coverage.

No independent review, unseen model verification, local write, actual assent, filing or collection permission, guaranteed remedy, approved clause/template, publication authority, operational readiness, or full-state/parent acceptance is asserted.

END S_AR PASS-14.

Every captured table

Captured cells with original header handling and explicitly labeled bounded correction overlays. Downloaded JSON retains original cells. Tables may contain source limitations, historical examples and identified corrections; the complete reading supplies context.

How to read the research →

Read the related correction supplements

These components repair their stated scope. They do not replace every other finding in this research series.

Arkansas credit-services and credit-repair organizations: classification, security, contracts, cancellation, refunds, and limited remedies →

Captured table 01

Regime or question · Operative starting point · Necessary predicates and limits · 10 data rows

Regime or question	Operative starting point	Necessary predicates and limits
Arkansas Uniform Arbitration Act	Arkansas Code §§ 16-108-201–233, materially enacted by Act 695 of 2011.	Determine agreement date, transition, exclusions, and applicable federal law.
Agreements on or after July 27, 2011	Displayed § 203(a) applies the revised subchapter.	This date is verified in the codification reproduction; the original act uses its effective-date formulation.
Earlier agreements	Section 203(b) permits application if all specified parties agree in a record.	Do not automatically apply the revised act to every older agreement. Section 233(a) also preserves the stated earlier proceedings/accrued rights.
State exclusions	Section 233(b): personal-injury/tort matters; employer–employee disputes; an insured or beneficiary under an insurance policy or annuity contract.	An exclusion from this state act is not necessarily an exclusion from the FAA. Insurance-related federal/state interaction is separately held.
Ordinary consumer or business contract	Neither ordinary consumer purpose nor business purpose alone decides arbitration coverage.	The actual agreement, transaction, parties, scope, and applicable law must be proved.
FAA § 2	Written arbitration provision in a covered maritime transaction or contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce; generally applicable contract defenses preserved.	A contractual statement “FAA applies” does not by itself prove agreement, commerce, authority, or federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
FAA § 1	Defines commerce and contains the specified transportation-employment exclusion.	It is not a generic consumer-debt exemption. Employment classification is outside this pass.
Later federal exception	Chapter 4 permits the specified election concerning sexual-assault or sexual-harassment disputes, with court determination under § 402(b).	Its definitions, claim timing, election, and statutory application must be established. It is not a general ordinary-debt exception.
State court enforcing an FAA-covered agreement	Federal substantive enforceability and preemption matter; available state procedure must be separately identified.	Badgerow notes that the Supreme Court has not categorically resolved direct application of all FAA §§ 4 and 9–11 procedures in state court.
Federal court	An independent jurisdictional basis is ordinarily required.	FAA applicability does not itself create federal-question jurisdiction. Section 4’s particular look-through mechanism differs from freestanding award motions.

Captured table 02

Stage · Court/forum rule examined · What remains necessary · 6 data rows

Stage	Court/forum rule examined	What remains necessary
State motion concerning an agreement	§§ 205, 207 and 226 require the appropriate court and parties; pending litigation affects where the motion belongs.	Actual court competence, pending action, notice and jurisdiction.
Arkansas arbitration venue	Section 227 addresses the agreed or actual hearing county, adverse-party residence/business alternatives, and subsequent motions in the same court unless directed otherwise.	No actual county or forum is selected here.
Federal motion to compel	Section 4’s text requires the stated independent-jurisdiction inquiry, aggrieved party/refusal predicate, notice and district-related conditions.	The statutory district language is not a universal forum-selection ruling for every posture.
Freestanding federal confirmation/vacatur	Badgerow: no § 4-style look-through for §§ 9–10 applications.	Actual diversity, federal question on the application, or another valid jurisdictional basis.
Award motion in an already stayed federal case	Jules: a court with jurisdiction over live claims stayed under § 3 retains jurisdiction over resulting §§ 9–10 motions.	A genuinely pending qualifying case—not merely an arbitration clause naming federal court.
State § 226’s Arkansas-arbitration provision	Supplies state-court authority under its terms.	It does not itself eliminate otherwise existing federal jurisdiction or create federal jurisdiction.

Captured table 03

Issue · Required inquiry · Consequence and uncertainty · 10 data rows

Issue	Required inquiry	Consequence and uncertainty
Offer and operative version	Identify the agreement actually presented, its date/version, incorporated material and change history.	A current webpage does not prove the terms presented earlier.
Assent	Establish legally sufficient acceptance under applicable contract law.	A signature, use, payment, checkbox or screenshot is evidence whose significance depends on the record—not an automatic conclusion.
Electronic record	Apply electronic-record recognition, agreement/context and attribution rules.	Electronic form is not inherently invalid; it also does not prove who acted or what was displayed.
Capacity and authority	Establish competent parties and actual representative authority.	Kindred Nursing rejects an arbitration-specific authority barrier, not ordinary neutral agency requirements.
Consideration and mutuality	Apply ordinary contract principles without imposing arbitration-only burdens.	Jorja Trading did not require identical reciprocal remedies. Its concurrence’s proposed broader abolition of mutuality was not the majority holding.
Delivery/access	Prove that the asserted terms and incorporation were communicated in a legally sufficient manner.	A generic account document or unexplained form can fail to connect the consumer to the arbitration terms.
Modification	Identify the original change mechanism, actual notice, effective version and assent/other legally sufficient basis.	A unilateral-change label neither automatically invalidates nor validates the clause.
Opt-out	Apply the actual provision and prove the event, method and timing.	No statutory universal opt-out period was established.
Survival and scope	Read the actual text for past claims, termination, parties and covered disputes.	Broad wording does not create assent or necessarily cover every later claim.
Cost/access defense	Identify likely actual costs, allocation, available relief and the asserted legal defense.	Green Tree rejected a speculative cost showing; it did not establish that every cost barrier is harmless.

Captured table 04

Challenge actually made · Default decision-maker or rule · Important qualification · 8 data rows

Challenge actually made	Default decision-maker or rule	Important qualification
“I never agreed to this contract or clause.”	Court determines whether the agreement was formed.	Genuine factual disputes can require the applicable trial procedure.
“The entire contract is unlawful or invalid.”	Buckeye separates whole-contract validity from the arbitration provision.	Its holding expressly distinguishes whether any agreement was ever concluded.
“The arbitration clause itself is unenforceable.”	Court ordinarily addresses that targeted challenge unless a valid delegation assigns it.	The delegation’s existence and enforceability must be separately tested.
“The delegation provision itself is unconscionable or invalid.”	Rent-A-Center requires attention to that specific challenge.	Merely repeating a challenge to the whole arbitration agreement may not reach the delegation.
“The parties clearly delegated scope or enforceability.”	Clear-and-unmistakable agreement can assign those questions to the arbitrator.	Henry Schein rejects a “wholly groundless” exception once valid delegation applies; it did not decide that the contract there actually delegated.
“Two contracts conflict about arbitration and court.”	Coinbase v. Suski requires the court to resolve which agreement governs that antecedent dispute.	It is not a merits ruling on every later forum clause.
Condition precedent to arbitration	Arkansas § 206(c) assigns the stated condition-precedent question to the arbitrator.	Actual formation and a valid contrary allocation must not be assumed.
Scope of a proved agreement	Section 206(b) supplies the state default, subject to valid agreement and governing federal law.	Scope is different from whether the debt is valid or the balance correct.

Captured table 05

Posture · Necessary showing · What does not establish enforcement rights · 7 data rows

Posture	Necessary showing	What does not establish enforcement rights
Original creditor	Actual agreement, party identity, scope and continuing right.	A branded statement alone.
Genuine assignee	Valid transfer of the relevant contractual rights and connection to this agreement/account.	A generic portfolio purchase or purchase price.
Successive debt buyer	Each legally material transfer and the applicable successor/assign language or other governing law.	An authentic last bill of sale that leaves an earlier link or account inclusion unproved.
Servicer	Actual agency/servicing authority and a legal basis to invoke arbitration for the relevant party.	Processing payments or sending notices alone.
Affiliate	Contract definition or a recognized nonsignatory theory with its elements proved.	Common ownership or a shared brand alone.
Nonsignatory claiming estoppel, beneficiary, agency, assumption or similar theory	Applicable state contract law and the particular facts.	FAA policy as a substitute for the theory’s elements.
Consumer facing an assignee	Existing defenses remain material under the applicable assignment law.	Transfer does not automatically discharge contract defenses.

Captured table 06

Event · Arkansas route examined · FAA route examined · 8 data rows

Event	Arkansas route examined	FAA route examined
Relief requested	§ 205 uses a motion with notice under applicable civil rules; an initial motion absent pending litigation has the stated summons-service requirement.	§ 6 generally treats applications as motions, except where the FAA provides otherwise.
Refusal to arbitrate	§ 207 requires the agreement/refusal showing; opposition is summarily decided under its terms.	§ 4 requires the specified aggrieved party, written agreement, refusal, jurisdiction, notice and hearing predicates.
No enforceable agreement	Court does not compel under § 207.	Section 4 does not authorize bypassing a genuine formation dispute.
Genuine formation issue	Appropriate judicial determination is required.	Section 4 provides a trial and its specific jury-demand mechanism. A bare label or universal jury entitlement is not supplied.
Merits appear weak	Section 207(d) prevents refusal merely because the underlying claim lacks apparent merit.	Arbitrability and debt merits remain distinct.
Pending court case	Section 207(e) directs the motion to the court where the covered proceeding is pending.	Federal court still requires its proper jurisdiction and procedural basis.
Judicial proceeding while arbitrability is decided	Section 207(f) requires a party motion and the prescribed stay.	Section 3 and applicable orders must be established; motion filing alone is not every kind of stay.
Arbitration while court question is pending	Section 206(d) permits proceeding unless the court orders otherwise.	No blanket “court motion stops the arbitration” rule.

Captured table 07

Question · Supported rule · Limit · 6 data rows

Question	Supported rule	Limit
Federal case is arbitrable and a party requests § 3 stay	Smith requires the stay rather than dismissal merely because all claims are arbitrable.	Dismissal for an independent reason, such as lack of jurisdiction, is different.
Federal denial of arbitration is appealed under § 16(a)	Coinbase v. Bielski requires the federal district proceeding to be stayed pending the qualifying interlocutory appeal.	Frivolous-appeal mechanisms and the actual appealed issue matter; this is not automatically Arkansas state-court procedure.
FAA order refuses stay or denies compulsion	Section 16(a) identifies appealable categories.	Actual finality, statute and appellate jurisdiction must be established.
FAA order grants stay or compels arbitration	Section 16(b) generally bars the specified interlocutory appeals, subject to its stated exception.	A final decision and a nonfinal order are different.
Arkansas appeal	Section 228 and Appellate Rule 2(a)(12) identify the state route and categories.	No universal state automatic appellate stay or actual filing deadline is supplied.
Other clocks	The arbitration motion or appeal does not automatically stop every response, limitation, judgment or enforcement clock.	An applicable statute or actual order must support the claimed suspension.

Captured table 08

Step · State provision examined · Conditions · 8 data rows

Step	State provision examined	Conditions
Initiation	§ 209	Notice in a record using the agreed method; otherwise the stated certified/registered-mail receipt or civil-service route; controversy and remedy described.
General notice	§ 202	Reasonable notice method and receipt rules; applies subject to specific provisions.
Hearing	§ 215	Fair process, specified summary-disposition procedure, hearing notice not less than five days, opportunity to be heard, present material evidence and cross-examine.
Participation without timely notice objection	§§ 209 and 215	Can waive the specified notice objection. It is not a universal waiver of every formation or misconduct issue.
Counsel	§ 216	Party may be represented by a lawyer, subject to § 204’s nonwaiver structure.
Award	§ 219	Signed or otherwise authenticated record and notice of the award; agreed/court-set timing and objection provisions matter.
Requested explanation	§ 221(e)	On the specified timely request before receipt of award notice, the arbitrator states the basis in fact and law.
Remedies and costs	§ 221	Court-available damages under required evidentiary standards; attorney fees if law or agreement authorizes; other stated remedy/cost powers.

Captured table 09

Route · Required act / unit / trigger · Permitted grounds or consequence · 9 data rows

Route	Required act / unit / trigger	Permitted grounds or consequence
Arkansas arbitrator correction, § 220	Motion and notice to all parties within 20 days after receipt of award notice; objection notice within 10 days after receipt of motion notice.	Specified correction, incomplete-finality or clarification grounds; not general reconsideration on demand.
Arkansas confirmation, § 222	Motion after notice of award.	Court shall confirm unless the statutory change/vacatur/correction conditions apply. No express filing period appears in this section; that is not proof of unlimited time under all law.
Arkansas vacatur, § 223	Motion filed within 90 days after receipt of award notice or qualifying modified/corrected award notice.	Six statutory categories; special discovery trigger for corruption, fraud or undue means.
Arkansas modification, § 224	Motion within 90 days after the stated notice.	Evident numerical/descriptive error; award on unsubmitted matter subject to statutory qualification; imperfection of form not affecting merits.
FAA confirmation, § 9	Its agreement/judgment/forum predicates; application “within one year” after award made.	Mandatory confirmation absent the specified statutory alteration. Consequences of an application beyond one year are not universally decided here.
FAA vacatur, § 10	Applicable court and proper motion/notice.	Corruption/fraud/undue means; evident partiality/corruption; prejudicial hearing misconduct; excess/imperfect execution of powers preventing the specified final award.
FAA modification, § 11	Applicable court and proper motion/notice.	Three confined correction categories.
FAA § 12	Notice of motion must be served within three months after award filed or delivered.	Filing alone is not the stated service act. No automatic conversion to ninety days or state fraud-discovery rule.
Court judgment	Arkansas § 225 or FAA §§ 9, 13, with actual jurisdiction and notice.	Court judgment and enforcement consequences follow the governing provisions; award issuance alone is not an actual levy or payment.

Captured table 10

Authority / source · Court/date, posture and narrow holding · Disposition, separate writings and limits · 22 data rows

Authority / source	Court/date, posture and narrow holding	Disposition, separate writings and limits
Asset Acceptance LLC v. Newby, 2014 Ark. 280 — S016	Arkansas Supreme Court, June 19, 2014. Debt buyer failed to sufficiently establish the asserted agreement’s connection to the consumer.	Direct appeal affirmed; sanctions cross-appeal dismissed. Dissent noted. No merits ruling on the debt.
Jorja Trading v. Willis, 2020 Ark. 133 — S017	Arkansas Supreme Court, April 9, 2020. Rejected the challenged mutuality theories and applied actual nonwaiver/small-claims language.	Reversed/remanded; Court of Appeals opinion vacated. Brown concurrence; Wynne dissent joined by Baker/Hudson; Hart did not participate. Not abolition of every neutral mutuality defense.
Altice USA v. Runyan, 2023 Ark. App. 124 — S018	March 1, 2023. Assent established on invoice-link/payment/admission record; contractual scope and challenge target mattered.	Reversed/remanded. No universal statement/payment assent rule; guardianship facts not generalized.
Arkansas Kenworth v. Gaston, 2026 Ark. App. 286 — S019	May 6, 2026. Competing signature evidence created a genuine formation issue; trial route sustained.	Affirmed. Murphy dissent joined by Abramson. Timing/preservation limits matter; commercial truck-repair facts are not consumer-merits findings.
HPD v. TETRA, 2012 Ark. 408 — S020	Arkansas Supreme Court, November 1, 2012. Actual commercial contract and quoted construction-rule incorporation clearly delegated issues.	Reversed/remanded to compel; cross-appeal moot. Historical provider rule body not separately retrieved.
Westlake Services v. England, 2024 Ark. App. 271 — S021	April 24, 2024. Applied Jorja and expressly distinguished Morgan on actual contract/conduct and lack of a prejudice premise.	Reversed/remanded. Thyer concurred. Not a general rule that filing collection litigation never waives arbitration.
First Options v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 — S022	U.S. Supreme Court, May 22, 1995. Court independently decides arbitrability absent clear agreement to delegate; objection before arbitrator was not assent.	Unanimous affirmance. Actual nonsignatory posture and ordinary contract principles preserved.
Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 — S023	February 21, 2006. Whole-contract illegality challenge separated from arbitration-clause challenge.	Reversed/remanded. Thomas dissented; Alito did not participate. Footnote 1 reserves whether any agreement was concluded.
Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 — S024	June 21, 2010. Separately targeted delegation challenge required in the posture presented.	Reversed/remanded. Stevens dissent joined by Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor. Not a formation-by-assumption rule.
Henry Schein v. Archer & White, 586 U.S. 63 — S025	January 8, 2019. No “wholly groundless” exception to a valid delegation.	Unanimous vacatur/remand. Actual delegation existence left for further proceedings.
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 — S026	April 27, 2011. The California class-arbitration rule conflicted with the FAA.	Reversed/remanded. Thomas concurrence; Breyer dissent. Not invalidation of all unconscionability defenses.
Kindred Nursing v. Clark, 581 U.S. 246 — S027	May 15, 2017. Arbitration-specific clear-authority requirement could not disfavor arbitration formation.	Reversed in part, vacated in part, remanded. Thomas dissented; Gorsuch did not participate. Neutral agency rules remain.
Arthur Andersen v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 — S028	May 4, 2009. Traditional state-law nonsignatory theories can support enforcement and the addressed appeal route.	Reversed/remanded. Souter dissent joined by Roberts/Stevens. Actual estoppel entitlement not decided.
Green Tree v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 — S029	December 11, 2000. Speculative prohibitive-cost showing was insufficient; actual likelihood evidence required.	Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded. Ginsburg partial dissent. Historical dismissal/finality discussion read with Smith.
Morgan v. Sundance, 596 U.S. 411 — S030	May 23, 2022. Arbitration-specific prejudice requirement rejected.	Unanimous vacatur/remand. Ultimate waiver and other framework questions not finally decided.
Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 — S031	May 16, 2024. Requested § 3 stay required when statutory predicates met.	Unanimous reversal/remand. Independent dismissal grounds distinguished.
Coinbase v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736 — S032	June 23, 2023. Federal proceedings stay during qualifying arbitrability interlocutory appeal.	Reversed/remanded. Jackson dissent and joiners noted; not a state-court automatic-stay holding.
Coinbase v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143 — S033	May 23, 2024. Court resolves which agreement governs when contracts conflict about forum/delegation.	Unanimous affirmance; Gorsuch concurrence. Underlying state contract result not universally decided.
Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 — S034	March 31, 2022. No look-through jurisdiction for freestanding award applications.	Reversed/remanded; Breyer dissented. State application of FAA procedural sections left qualified.
Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, 608 U.S. ___ — S035	May 14, 2026. Jurisdiction over a live case stayed under § 3 continues for resulting confirmation/vacatur motions.	Unanimous affirmance. Distinct from freestanding Badgerow application.
Hall Street v. Mattel, 552 U.S. 576 — S036	March 25, 2008. Parties cannot expand FAA expedited review into general legal-error review.	Vacated/remanded. Separate dissents noted; other independent avenues not universally adjudicated.
Medicine Shoppe v. Turner Investments, 614 F.3d 485 — S037	Eighth Circuit, July 21, 2010. Applied statutory review limits after Hall Street.	Affirmed. Published commercial-franchise case; no independent manifest-disregard ground.

Captured table 11

Evidence/event · Qualifying-record branch · Adverse branch · 6 data rows

Evidence/event	Qualifying-record branch	Adverse branch
Displayed terms	Archived Version A shows the actual arbitration and delegation terms available at the acceptance step.	Only a current webpage or a different later version exists.
Acceptance	Attributable record links the consumer’s affirmative act to Version A; access and ordinary formation requirements are assumed established.	Consumer specifically denies the act; identifiers or signature evidence conflict.
Authority/capacity	Competence and authority are stipulated for the model.	Representative authority or capacity is unsupported.
Opt-out	No qualifying opt-out occurred, expressly assumed.	A purported timely opt-out is supported by evidence; actual contract requirements must be applied.
Delegation	Clear text assigns specified gateway questions; no formation assumption is needed because the qualifying agreement is proved.	The proponent relies on delegation contained only in the disputed version.
Challenge	Consumer challenges only the entire underlying contract.	Consumer specifically challenges the delegation’s enforceability, or denies forming any agreement at all.

Captured table 12

Party/document · Working branch · Missing-evidence branch · 4 data rows

Party/document	Working branch	Missing-evidence branch
Creditor O’s agreement	Authentic agreement includes a proved successors/assigns provision covering the dispute.	Generic agreement not connected to this account.
O → A transfer, April 1, 2026	Operative assignment and account-level evidence actually transfer the pertinent rights.	Bill of sale references a missing or mismatched account schedule.
Servicer S, April 10	Actual authority to act for A is established to the extent asserted.	S merely sends collection communications; enforcement authority is unproved.
Nonsignatory theory	A specific recognized theory and its elements are proved.	“Affiliate,” “agent,” or “beneficiary” is asserted without supporting facts.

Captured table 13

Date/event · Prompt-assertion branch · Potential-waiver branch · 4 data rows

Date/event	Prompt-assertion branch	Potential-waiver branch
March 2, 2026	Lawsuit begins.	Same.
March 10	Party identifies the agreement, moves to compel, and expressly requests the applicable stay.	Party instead seeks merits discovery and judicial merits rulings.
Through August	Party consistently pursues the threshold arbitration question.	Party substantially litigates the same dispute and seeks arbitration only after adverse merits developments.
September 10	Court determines whether agreement/scope/waiver predicates are satisfied.	Same; actual conduct and governing standard matter.

Captured table 14

Segment · Days · 4 data rows

Segment	Days
April 2–30	29
May 1–31	31
June 1–30	30
Total	90

Captured table 15

Event · Award/judgment amount · Actual cash credit · 4 data rows

Event	Award/judgment amount	Actual cash credit
Award issued	$1,800	$0
Judgment entered	$1,800	$0
Actual lawful payment credited June 1	—	$300
Remaining modeled judgment	$1,500	—

Captured table 16

Posture · Fictional facts · Rule/stage/consequence and gap · 12 data rows

Posture	Fictional facts	Rule/stage/consequence and gap
P01 — Consumer versus business purpose	One agreement finances household services; another concerns a sole proprietor’s business.	Purpose alone does not decide FAA or state-act coverage. Actual agreement, commerce and exclusions remain necessary. C001–C005, C088.
P02 — Missing clause	Collector produces statements but no connected arbitration terms.	Formation remains unproved; Newby is relevant. No automatic merits victory. C014–C018.
P03 — Authentic electronic record	Complete version, attributable acceptance and access are established.	Electronic form is not inherently invalid; neutral formation and defense analysis still applies. C016–C020.
P04 — Change or opt-out	Later terms add arbitration; consumer asserts a valid opt-out.	Prove change authority, notice, applicable version and actual opt-out event. No universal deadline invented. C021.
P05 — Delegation-specific cost challenge	Consumer identifies costs of deciding arbitrability itself, not merely total case cost.	Correct challenge target matters; likely actual burden must be evidenced. C025, C029–C030.
P06 — Generic AAA reference	Agreement says only “AAA rules,” with no established dated rule set.	Do not substitute current consumer rules for the actual incorporated body. C033–C034.
P07 — Servicer as nonsignatory	Servicer lacks proved enforcement authority.	Agency or other theory must be established; label alone insufficient. C035–C038.
P08 — Broad nonwaiver clause	Party litigates merits extensively despite a nonwaiver clause.	Clause and conduct both matter; no automatic no-waiver outcome. C051–C053.
P09 — Stay requested	Federal party requests § 3 stay; all claims are found arbitrable.	Smith controls the specified stay-versus-dismissal issue; independent jurisdiction must exist. C046.
P10 — State interlocutory appeal	Arkansas court denies compulsion.	Apply state appeal categories and actual state stay procedure, not Bielski automatically. C057–C058.
P11 — Notice-defective award	Recipient learns of an award without proof of proper initiation or award notice.	Examine statutory prejudice, objection, receipt and challenge grounds; no automatic voidness or expired-clock finding. C059, C068–C070, C083.
P12 — Special sector or foreign/tribal forum	Agreement concerns a protected special category or foreign/tribal proceeding.	FAA chapters, federal exceptions, sovereignty, treaty and state exclusions require separate authority. C003, C005, C097–C098.

Captured table 17

Source ID · Issuer/title/full literal HTTPS URL · Actual reading, version/effect and limits · 15 data rows

Source ID	Issuer/title/full literal HTTPS URL	Actual reading, version/effect and limits
S_AR-P14-S001	Arkansas General Assembly, Act 695 of 2011. https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=%2FACTS%2F2011%2FPublic%2FACT695.pdf	P: material new definitions, transition, agreement, court process, appointment/hearing, award/review and savings clauses. Images inspected at printed3/PDF2, 4/PDF3, 21/PDF20, 22/PDF21, 24/PDF23 and25/PDF24. Approved March24,2011; exact default commencement not independently established. Old strike-through text not treated as operative.
S_AR-P14-S002	§§16-108-201–204. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-201/ ; https://codes.findlaw.com/ar/title-16-practice-procedure-and-courts/ar-code-sect-16-108-202/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-203/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-204/	M: material definitions, notice, transition and nonwaivable provisions. Justia2025; FindLaw §202 dated March28,2024. §203’s July27,2011 date is codified text, not approval date.
S_AR-P14-S003	§§16-108-205–209. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-205/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-206/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-207/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-208/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-209/	M,2025: complete material motion, decision-maker, stay, provisional-relief and initiation bodies. Selected enactment support S001; full later chain held.
S_AR-P14-S004	§§16-108-211,212,215,216. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-211/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-212/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-215/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-216/	M,2025: appointment, disclosure, hearing/summary-disposition and representation. Full arbitral discovery/evidence regime not investigated.
S_AR-P14-S005	§§16-108-219–221. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-219/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-220/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-221/	M,2025: award, correction, remedies/costs and requested factual/legal basis. Not generic uniform-act wording substituted for Arkansas text.
S_AR-P14-S006	§§16-108-222–225. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-222/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-223/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-224/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-225/	M,2025: full material confirmation, six vacatur grounds, filing periods, rehearing, modification and court judgment/cost provisions. S001 images provide primary enactment comparison.
S_AR-P14-S007	§§16-108-226–228. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-226/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-227/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-228/	M,2025: court jurisdiction, county venue and appeal categories. No actual forum selected.
S_AR-P14-S008	§§16-108-230,233 and index. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-230/ ; https://codes.findlaw.com/ar/title-16-practice-procedure-and-courts/ar-code-sect-16-108-233/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/	M: E-SIGN and savings/exclusions; §233 FindLaw March28,2024. Index supports structure only. Codified numbering differs from original act.
S_AR-P14-S009	OLRC, 9 USC1–6. 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/	P: material complete definitions/exclusion, written-commerce agreement, stay, petition/notice/trial, appointment and motion provisions. Display through October15,2026.
S_AR-P14-S010	9 USC9–13. https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s9/ ; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s10/ ; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s11/ ; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s12/ ; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s13/	P: complete material award, grounds, service/time and judgment-document provisions. Exact legacy resident/nonresident service wording retained; full modern service harmonization held.
S_AR-P14-S011	9 USC16,401,402. https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s16/ ; https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s401/ ; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/402	P for16/401; R for402 after official failures. Material appeal categories and Chapter4 boundary, including applicability to specified post-March3,2022 disputes/claims. No special-sector factual application.
S_AR-P14-S012	Arkansas UETA §§25-32-105,107,109. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-25/chapter-32/section-25-32-105/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-25/chapter-32/section-25-32-107/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-25/chapter-32/section-25-32-109/	M,2025: agreement/context, electronic recognition and attribution. Original act/full scope/current chain not reconstructed; no broad electronic-compliance certificate.
S_AR-P14-S013	§§4-58-102,105. https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-4/subtitle-5/chapter-58/section-4-58-102/ ; https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-4/subtitle-5/chapter-58/section-4-58-105/	M,2025: narrow assignability and defense-preservation bodies, including §105(b)(3). Full ownership and UCC framework deferred.
S_AR-P14-S014	Arkansas Civil Rule6, Appellate Civil Rule2, Supreme Court/Court of Appeals Rule5-2. https://www.courtrules.net/arkansas/arkansas-civil-procedure/rule-6 ; https://www.courtrules.net/arkansas/arkansas-appellate-civil/rule-2 ; https://www.courtrules.net/arkansas/arkansas-supreme-court/rule-5-2	R: computation, arbitration appeal reference and publication/citation provisions. Publisher date not promulgation; full official chain and local cutoff held.
S_AR-P14-S015	U.S. Courts/GPO, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, December1,2025 edition. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf	P: Rule6(a), material related text, printed12–14/PDF30–32; Rule81(a)(6)(B), printed100/PDF118. Images PDF30 and118 inspected. Limited reading, not entire142-page book.

Source links captured in this table

Captured table 18

Source ID · Court/title/full literal HTTPS URL · Actual material read and pinpoint · 6 data rows

Source ID	Court/title/full literal HTTPS URL	Actual material read and pinpoint
S_AR-P14-S016	Asset Acceptance v. Newby. https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/2014/cv-13-319.html ; PDF https://cases.justia.com/arkansas/supreme-court/2014-cv-13-319.pdf?ts=1403190113	R: majority formation/disposition, printed7–11/PDF6–10; image printed10/PDF9. June19,2014. Publisher summary’s sanctions characterization not adopted.
S_AR-P14-S017	Jorja Trading v. Willis. https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/2020/cv-18-1012.html ; PDF https://cases.justia.com/arkansas/supreme-court/2020-cv-18-1012.pdf?ts=1586444459	R: majority mutuality/waiver, printed4–10; image printed6/PDF5. April9,2020. Concurrence/dissent identified; not merged with majority.
S_AR-P14-S018	Altice USA v. Runyan. https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/court-of-appeals/2023/cv-22-236.html ; PDF https://cases.justia.com/arkansas/court-of-appeals/2023-cv-22-236.pdf?ts=1677686950	R: majority formation/scope/challenge analysis, printed9–13/PDF8–12; image printed9/PDF8. March1,2023. Quoted Johnson not separately read.
S_AR-P14-S019	Arkansas Kenworth v. Gaston. https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/court-of-appeals/2026/cv-25-108.html ; PDF https://cases.justia.com/arkansas/court-of-appeals/2026-cv-25-108.pdf?ts=1778080177	R: majority printed6–11/PDF5–10; image printed8/PDF7; material dissent/preservation discussion. May6,2026. Not a coercion or final-assent holding.
S_AR-P14-S020	HPD v. TETRA. https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/2012/11-1299.html ; PDF https://cases.justia.com/arkansas/supreme-court/11-1299.pdf?ts=1462300329	R: majority printed7–12/PDF6–11; image printed12/PDF11. November1,2012. AAA Construction rules quoted in opinion, not independently opened.
S_AR-P14-S021	Westlake Services v. England. https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/court-of-appeals/2024/cv-22-756.html ; PDF https://cases.justia.com/arkansas/court-of-appeals/2024-cv-22-756.pdf?ts=1713971305	R: majority mutuality/waiver, printed12–18/PDF11–17; image printed17/PDF16. April24,2024. Thyer concurrence identified; full separate-writing synthesis not claimed.

Source links captured in this table

Captured table 19

Source ID · Court/title/full literal HTTPS URL · Actual material read and page limits · 16 data rows

Source ID	Court/title/full literal HTTPS URL	Actual material read and page limits
S_AR-P14-S022	First Options, 514US938. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-514/pdf/USREPORTS-514-938.pdf	P: majority942–947/PDF4–9; image944/PDF6. May22,1995.
S_AR-P14-S023	Buckeye, 546US440. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-546/pdf/USREPORTS-546-440.pdf	P: majority443–449/PDF3–9, including footnote1; image444/PDF4. February21,2006.
S_AR-P14-S024	Rent-A-Center, 561US63. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-561/pdf/USREPORTS-561-63.pdf	P: majority67–76/PDF4–13 and material formation qualification; image70/PDF7. June21,2010.
S_AR-P14-S025	Henry Schein. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf	P: majority printed3–8/PDF4–9; image printed7/PDF8. January8,2019.
S_AR-P14-S026	Concepcion, 563US333. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-563/pdf/USREPORTS-563-333.pdf	P: material majority339–352/PDF6–19; image340/PDF7. April27,2011. Full class-waiver doctrine not separately investigated.
S_AR-P14-S027	Kindred Nursing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-32_o7jp.pdf	P: material majority printed4–10/PDF6–12; image printed7/PDF9. May15,2017.
S_AR-P14-S028	Arthur Andersen, 556US624. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-556/pdf/USREPORTS-556-624.pdf	P: majority629–632/PDF5–8; image630/PDF6. May4,2009.
S_AR-P14-S029	Green Tree, 531US79. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-531/pdf/USREPORTS-531-79.pdf	P: material majority89–92/PDF10–13; image91/PDF12. December11,2000.
S_AR-P14-S030	Morgan. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf	P: majority printed4–7/PDF5–8; image printed6/PDF7. May23,2022.
S_AR-P14-S031	Smith v. Spizzirri. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1218_5357.pdf	P: majority printed3–6/PDF4–7, including independent-dismissal qualification; image printed3/PDF4. May16,2024.
S_AR-P14-S032	Coinbase v. Bielski. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf	P: material majority printed1–10/PDF3–12; image printed2/PDF4. June23,2023. Separate dissent identified, not fully analyzed.
S_AR-P14-S033	Coinbase v. Suski. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-3_879d.pdf	P: majority printed1–8/PDF2–9; image printed8/PDF9. May23,2024.
S_AR-P14-S034	Badgerow. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1143_m6hn.pdf	P: material majority printed1–16/PDF3–18, including footnote2; image printed5/PDF7. March31,2022.
S_AR-P14-S035	Jules. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-83_3e04.pdf	P: material majority printed1–16/PDF4–19; core printed7–10 and15–16; images printed7/PDF10 and16/PDF19. May14,2026, unanimous affirmance.
S_AR-P14-S036	Hall Street, 552US576. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-552/pdf/USREPORTS-552-576.pdf	P: material majority584–592/PDF8–16; image586/PDF10. March25,2008.
S_AR-P14-S037	Eighth Circuit, Medicine Shoppe. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/10/07/092179P.pdf	P: published six-page majority, especially printed4–6/PDF3–5; image printed6/PDF5. July21,2010.

Source links captured in this table

Captured table 20

Source ID · Exact routes · Actual status and resulting hold · 2 data rows

Source ID	Exact routes	Actual status and resulting hold
S_AR-P14-S038	AAA index https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/ ; consumer page https://www.adr.org/rules-forms-and-fees/consumer/ ; attempted rules https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Consumer_Rules_Web.pdf ; attempted schedule https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Consumer_Fee_Schedule.pdf	G/F: index and generic consumer page read. Complete operative rules/schedule not obtained; rules PDF inaccessible, fee route redirected to generic page. No exact consumer fee amount, incorporated historical version, waiver criterion, or accepted form certified.
S_AR-P14-S039	Official/current-body failures listed below	F: bounded alternatives disclosed; no absence-of-law or complete-currentness inference.

Source links captured in this table

Captured table 21

Exact route · Result / alternative · 8 data rows

Exact route	Result / alternative
https://www.arcourts.gov/rules-and-administrative-orders	404; reproduced rule text used with limits.
https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/en/nav.do	403; published Arkansas opinion republications used.
https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-202/	Body unavailable; FindLaw’s dated §202 body read.
https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-16/subtitle-7/chapter-108/subchapter-2/section-16-108-233/	Body unavailable; FindLaw’s dated §233 body read.
https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t9/s402/ ; https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title9-section402&num=0&edition=prelim	Official body inaccessible/404; Cornell statutory reproduction used and labeled.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1143_1an2.pdf	Incorrect/unavailable Badgerow route; corrected official route in S034 succeeded.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf	Concepcion route returned404; official U.S. Reports body S026 succeeded.
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure-december-1-2025_0.pdf	Initial file route unavailable; official landing-page link supplied the successful S015 PDF.

Source links captured in this table

Captured table 22

Claim ID · Actor/stage/predicate · Required step or consequence · 34 data rows

Claim ID	Actor/stage/predicate	Required step or consequence	Source/pinpoint; type/limit
S_AR-P14-C001	State regime selected	Act695 supplies revised architecture; approval differs from commencement.	S001; T/G.
C002	Agreement date assessed	Apply §203 date and earlier-agreement record-consent rule.	S002§203(a)–(b); T, official date chain partial.
C003	State exclusion asserted	Apply three §233 exclusions and savings clause; no general consumer exclusion.	S008§233; S001; T.
C004	FAA invoked	Prove written covered agreement and commerce predicates.	S009§§1–2; T.
C005	Employment exception asserted	§1 is specific, not generic consumer immunity.	S009§1; T, employment scope deferred.
C006	State act applied to FAA agreement	Address federal substantive preemption; no automatic all-procedure replacement.	S009§2; S026–S027; T/H.
C007	Contract defense asserted	Apply neutral defenses, not arbitration-specific hostility.	S009§2; S026–S027; T/H.
C008	Federal forum invoked	FAA alone does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction.	S034–S035; H.
C009	§4 petition filed federally	Establish its independent-jurisdiction/look-through predicates.	S009§4; S034; T/H.
C010	Standalone award motion	No §4-style look-through under Badgerow.	S034; H.
C011	Award motion in stayed federal case	Jules preserves jurisdiction over resulting award motions on its predicates.	S035 pp.7–10,15–16; H.
C012	Arkansas court/county selected	Apply §§226–227 and pending-case rule; no federal-jurisdiction creation.	S007; S003§207(e); T/I.
C013	Contract varies act	Respect §204’s nonwaivable and limited-variation provisions.	S002§204; T.
C014	Proponent seeks compulsion	Establish actual agreement with the relevant party.	S016 pp.7–11; S003§207; H/T.
C015	Formation assessed	Competence, subject, consideration, assent and obligations matter.	S017 pp.3–6; H.
C016	Electronic agreement asserted	Electronic recognition does not prove attribution or agreement.	S012§§105,107,109; T/I.
C017	Screenshot/checkbox supplied	Connect act, terms, version, access and person.	S016,S018–S019; I, actual proof absent.
C018	Generic card agreement offered	Newby rejected insufficient consumer connection.	S016; H.
C019	Invoice/payment assent argued	Runyan’s actual references/admissions supported assent.	S018 pp.9–13; H, not universal rule.
C020	Signature genuinely disputed	Kenworth supports trial on its evidentiary/preservation record.	S019 pp.6–11; H.
C021	Change/opt-out/survival asserted	Actual terms, notice, version and scope must be established.	S018; S003§206; I/G.
C022	Mutuality challenged	Jorja did not require identical remedies; concurrence is not majority abolition.	S017 pp.4–10; H.
C023	Class/public-policy defense used	Concepcion addresses the particular obstructive state rule, not all defenses.	S026 at339–352; H.
C024	Representative authority disputed	Neutral agency rules remain; arbitration-only authority rule barred.	S027 pp.4–10; H.
C025	Cost barrier claimed	Establish likely actual prohibitive costs; speculation insufficient.	S029 at89–92; H.
C026	Arbitrability delegation alleged	Court default and clear-and-unmistakable test apply.	S022 at942–947; H.
C027	Entire contract challenged	Buckeye’s separability rule differs from no-agreement question.	S023 at443–449 &fn1; H.
C028	Arbitration clause challenged	Identify targeted clause defense and any valid delegation.	S023–S024; H.
C029	Delegation invoked	Prove delegation agreement rather than assume it.	S022,S024; H/I.
C030	Delegation itself challenged	Specific challenge must be addressed at that level.	S024 at70–74; H.
C031	Delegated argument seems weak	No wholly-groundless exception once valid delegation applies.	S025 pp.3–8; H.
C032	Two contracts conflict	Court decides antecedent governing-contract question under Suski.	S033 pp.5–8; H.
C033	Rule incorporation relied on	HPD depended on actual commercial text and quoted construction rules.	S020 pp.7–12; H.
C034	Current provider page substituted	Exact incorporated dated rule body remains necessary and held.	S020,S038; G.

Captured table 23

Claim ID · Actor/stage/predicate · Required step or consequence · 24 data rows

Claim ID	Actor/stage/predicate	Required step or consequence	Source/pinpoint; type/limit
C035	Assignee seeks enforcement	Establish transferred contractual right and this agreement/account.	S013; S016; T/I.
C036	Nonsignatory invokes arbitration	Traditional state-law theory may apply, but elements must be proved.	S028 at629–632; H.
C037	Servicer/affiliate invokes clause	Actual authority/theory, not label, required.	S028; I/G.
C038	Assignment affects defenses	Applicable defense-preservation language remains relevant.	S013§105(b)(3); T, full assignment law held.
C039	Arbitration result generalized	Agreement validity does not decide debt title/amount/merits.	S003§207(d); T/I.
C040	State judicial relief requested	Motion and appropriate initial/subsequent notice/service.	S003§205; T.
C041	Agreement/refusal disputed	Court summarily decides under §207; no compulsion without enforceable agreement.	S003§207(a)–(d); T.
C042	Federal §4 petitioner	Establish aggrievement, refusal, agreement, jurisdiction and forum predicates.	S009§4; T.
C043	§4 notice given	At least five days’ written notice through specified procedure.	S009§4; S015Rule81; T, no live calendar.
C044	Genuine §4 issue raised	Trial/jury route has statutory party and demand conditions.	S009§4; S019; T/H.
C045	State stay requested/compulsion ordered	Apply §207(f) and(g), including severability conditions.	S003§207; T.
C046	Federal §3 stay requested	Smith requires stay rather than dismissal solely for arbitrability.	S009§3; S031; T/H.
C047	Court arbitrability question pending	Arbitration may proceed under §206(d) unless court orders otherwise.	S003§206(d); T.
C048	Provisional relief needed	§208 predicates and nonwaiver qualification apply.	S003§208; T.
C049	Appointment mechanism fails	Apply agreed/statutory appointment route and actual conditions.	S009§5; S004§211; T.
C050	Neutrality/disclosure questioned	Apply continuing disclosure and objection/vacatur provisions.	S004§212; T.
C051	Litigation waiver alleged	No arbitration-specific prejudice requirement under Morgan.	S030 pp.4–7; H.
C052	Arkansas follow-on invoked	Westlake expressly considered Morgan and distinguished prejudice issue.	S021 pp.16–18; H.
C053	Contract reserves court remedy	Jorja/Westlake are fact- and contract-specific, not universal immunity.	S017,S021; H/I.
C054	Motion or delay occurs	No fixed waiver deadline or universal clock suspension established.	S030,S003; I/G.
C055	Federal appeal proposed	Apply §16’s actual adverse-order/final/interlocutory categories.	S011§16; T.
C056	Qualifying federal denial appeal	Bielski supplies federal pending-appeal stay.	S032; H, state application not assumed.
C057	State arbitration order appealed	Apply §228 and Appellate2(a)(12).	S007§228; S014; T.
C058	State automatic appellate stay claimed	No universal state rule established from Bielski.	S032/S014; G.

Captured table 24

Claim ID · Actor/stage/predicate · Required step or consequence · 27 data rows

Claim ID	Actor/stage/predicate	Required step or consequence	Source/pinpoint; type/limit
C059	Arbitration initiated	Record notice, agreed/default method and controversy/remedy content.	S003§209; S002§202; T.
C060	Hearing/summary disposition	Apply notice, reasonable response, evidence and hearing rights.	S004§215; T.
C061	Party wants counsel	§216 and nonwaiver framework apply.	S004§216; S002§204; T.
C062	Award rendered	Signed/authenticated record, notice and timing requirements.	S005§219; T.
C063	Reasoned basis requested	Timely pre-notice request triggers §221(e).	S005§221(e); T.
C064	Damages/fees/costs awarded	Establish statute/agreement/evidentiary predicates.	S005§221; S006§225; T.
C065	Consumer provider fee claimed	Exact incorporated schedule and actual cost facts not established.	S029,S038; G.
C066	Arbitrator correction sought	Twenty-day motion/notice and ten-day objection routes, specific grounds.	S005§220; T.
C067	State confirmation requested	Shall confirm subject to statutory exceptions; no express §222 filing limit.	S006§222; T, not perpetual-time finding.
C068	State vacatur sought	Establish one of six §223(a) grounds.	S006§223(a); T.
C069	No agreement/improper notice alleged	Apply actual participation/objection and prejudice qualifications.	S006§223(a)(5)–(6); T.
C070	State ordinary vacatur motion	File within90days from specified receipt event.	S006§223(b); T.
C071	State procurement fraud/corruption alleged	Discovery/reasonable-care ninety-day trigger applies on its predicates.	S006§223(b); T.
C072	State modification sought	Ninety-day receipt-based motion; three limited grounds.	S006§224; T.
C073	State award vacated	Rehearing availability and different-arbitrator conditions apply.	S006§223(c)–(d); T.
C074	Court enters state judgment	§225 applies; costs/fees require their conditions.	S006§225; T.
C075	FAA confirmation sought	§9 agreement, court, one-year text and statutory-exception predicates.	S010§9; T, beyond-year consequence held.
C076	FAA award motion served	Apply actual §9/12 notice text and governing procedural interpretation.	S010; S015; T/G.
C077	FAA award challenged	§10 grounds, not generic dissatisfaction.	S010§10(a); T.
C078	FAA correction requested	§11’s three limited grounds.	S010§11; T.
C079	FAA vacatur/correction notice	Serve within three months after filed/delivered event.	S010§12; T, not90days.
C080	FAA judgment entered	§13 required papers and judgment effect apply.	S010§13; T.
C081	Expanded legal-error review requested	HallStreet limits the FAA expedited route.	S036 at584–592; H.
C082	Manifest disregard asserted independently	MedicineShoppe rejects it as extra FAA ground.	S037 pp.4–6; H.
C083	Participation/notice used as waiver	Apply specific statute; no universal all-issue waiver.	S003§209; S004§215; S006§223; T/I.
C084	Award issued or funds held	Not automatically levy, payment or new lawful fee/interest entitlement.	S006§225; S010§13; I/G.
C085	Reconsideration/corrected award/tolling	Qualifying modified award differs from any request; equitable issues held.	S005§220; S006§223–224; S010§12; T/G.

Captured table 25

Claim ID · Predicate · Consequence · 15 data rows

Claim ID	Predicate	Consequence	Source/pinpoint; type/limit
C086	Court period computed	Apply actual governing computation rule; do not add service days indiscriminately.	S014Rule6; S015Rule6(a),81(a)(6); T.
C087	FAA procedure applied in state court	Badgerow preserves a qualification; selected Arkansas cases do not settle every procedural issue.	S034 fn2; S019; H/G.
C088	Consumer/business label used	Neither label alone decides all arbitration predicates.	S002–S009; T/I.
C089	Waiver/defense finding requested	Actual facts and proper challenge target remain necessary.	S022–S030; G.
C090	Complete treatment claimed	No full citator or absence-of-authority certificate.	Case register; G.
C091	Current statute/rule certified	Selected enactment and reproductions leave integrated-chain gaps.	S001–S015,S039; G.
C092	Electronic-compliance conclusion	Narrow recognition reading is not full agreement/E-SIGN certification.	S008§230; S012; G.
C093	M01 applied	Authenticity/version/delegation branches remain conditional.	M01; C014–C032; C.
C094	M02 applied	Transfer price, actual credit and enforcement rights separated.	M02; C035–C039; C.
C095	M03 applied	No fixed waiver deadline; requested federal/state stay routes distinguished.	M03; C045–C058; C.
C096	M04 applied	Ninety days, three months, service, filing and cash credit remain distinct.	M04; C066–C087; C.
C097	Special statutory exception invoked	Chapter4 election/timing/court decision and other sector predicates required.	S011§§401–402; T/G.
C098	Local/tribal/foreign application	Particular law, forum and facts remain unresearched.	Scope; G.
C099	Costs assumed zero or capped	No complete government/provider cost schedule verified.	S038; G.
C100	Earlier scope cited	Broad reviewed remainder authorizes this focus, not prior arbitration acceptance.	Supplied scope; G.

Captured table 26

Row · Requested issue · Resolved portion / claims · 30 data rows

Row	Requested issue	Resolved portion / claims	Exact remaining evidence or action
K01	State act and transition	Act695 and current displayed structure; C001–C003	Complete official integrated Code and commencement/recodification chain.
K02	State exclusions	Three categories read; C003	Actual facts and governing federal preemption, especially insurance.
K03	FAA coverage	Writing/commerce and exceptions; C004–C007	Actual transaction and agreement.
K04	Federal jurisdiction	Badgerow/Jules distinctions; C008–C011	Actual pending case, jurisdictional allegations and court status.
K05	State court/venue	§§205/207/226/227; C012,C040–C041	Actual court competence and county predicates.
K06	Formation elements/burden	Newby/Jorja and statutory showing	Actual terms, parties, consideration, assent and authority.
K07	Electronic assent/version	UETA and contrasting cases; C016–C020	Actual archive, attribution, presentation and access.
K08	Modification/opt-out/survival	Contract-specific inquiry; C021	Actual clause, notices, event and effective version.
K09	Neutral defenses/mutuality	Federal/state holdings; C022–C025	Specific defense and actual evidentiary record.
K10	Cost/access barrier	GreenTree burden; C025,C065	Applicable fee schedule, likely costs and available waivers.
K11	Formation versus whole-contract validity	FirstOptions/Buckeye; C026–C028	Correct challenge and actual agreement evidence.
K12	Delegation-specific challenge	Rent-A-Center/Schein; C029–C031	Actual delegation text and targeted defense.
K13	Conflicting contracts	Suski; C032	Versions, integration, supersession and actual choice-of-law facts.
K14	Institutional incorporation	HPD read; C033–C034	Exact incorporated dated rules and consumer-context construction.
K15	Assignee rights	Statutory boundary and Newby; C035	Actual transfer, account inclusion and transferred right.
K16	Nonsignatory/servicer	Carlisle framework; C036–C038	Specific state-law theory and authority evidence.
K17	Motion/notice/service	State205/207 and FAA4/6; C040–C044	Actual case posture and compliant notice/service.
K18	Formation hearing/trial	FAA4/Kenworth; C044	Genuine dispute, proof, jury demand and preservation.
K19	Stay pending decision/compulsion	§§206–208/Smith; C045–C048	Actual motion, predicates and order.
K20	Appointment/disclosure	FAA5/state211–212; C049–C050	Actual selection failure, neutrality and disclosures.
K21	Waiver after Morgan	Morgan/Westlake; C051–C054	Actual litigation conduct and governing framework.
K22	Federal/state appeals	§16/§228/Bielski; C055–C058	Actual appeal category, finality, timeliness and state stay authority.
K23	Arbitral notice/hearing	§§209/215/216; C059–C061	Actual initiation, hearing and objections.
K24	Award/remedies/costs	§§219/221; C062–C065	Actual signed award, request, law/agreement and provider rules.
K25	Arbitrator correction	§220; C066	Actual notice, motion, grounds and applicable internal computation.
K26	State confirmation/vacatur/modification	§§222–225; C067–C074	Actual receipt, ground, prejudice, participation and filing.
K27	FAA award route	§§9–13; C075–C080	Actual jurisdiction, agreement, service and filed/delivered trigger.
K28	Review standard	HallStreet/MedicineShoppe; C081–C082	Actual statutory ground; full later treatment.
K29	Timing/tolling/award judgment	Distinctions preserved; C083–C087	Local service, equitable issues, corrected award and actual order.
K30	Actual permission/merits	Boundaries preserved; C039,C084,C088–C100	No actual agreement, debt, status, award or payment facts supplied.

Captured table 27

Row · Actor/event · Supported step · 10 data rows

Row	Actor/event	Supported step	Remaining facts
W01	Party identifies regime	Date, commerce, state transition and exclusion analysis.	Actual agreement and transaction.
W02	Proponent establishes agreement	Connect terms/version to assent and authority.	Authentic records and competing evidence.
W03	Party identifies challenge	Separate formation, whole contract, clause and delegation.	Exact pleading/argument and evidence.
W04	Assignee/nonsignatory invokes right	Prove transfer or applicable theory.	Actual chain and authority.
W05	Court receives motion	Correct court, notice, service and showing.	Actual jurisdiction and pending case.
W06	Court resolves disputed formation	Applicable hearing/trial and preservation.	Actual genuine issue and demand.
W07	Stay/appeal considered	Apply federal or state route, not both by assumption.	Actual order and appeal predicates.
W08	Arbitration proceeds	Proper notice, appointment, disclosure and hearing.	Actual provider rules and events.
W09	Award challenged or confirmed	Correct ground, event, unit, filing/service and court.	Actual award, receipt and jurisdiction.
W10	Judgment/payment follows	Separate award, judgment and actual credit.	Actual lawful order and remittance.

Captured table 28

Row · Authority family · Status · 8 data rows

Row	Authority family	Status	Exact next evidence
Q01	Act695/current Code	Official act plus dated mirrors	Complete current official §§201–233 and recodification chain.
Q02	Transition date	July27,2011 codified date read	Primary general commencement evidence if date is disputed.
Q03	FAA current text	OLRC through October15,2026	Any material later enactment; actual special-sector predicates.
Q04	State procedural rules	Reproductions and current cases	Official consolidated rules and local service/filing/stay requirements.
Q05	Federal procedure	Official December2025 compilation	Applicable later amendments/local rules and actual court calendar.
Q06	Provider rules/fees	Generic pages only	Exact incorporated dated rules and operative fee/waiver schedule.
Q07	Cases	Twenty-two material published opinions	Complete current citator and responsive later applications.
Q08	Award edge cases	Statutory text and controlling review cases	Jurisdiction-specific beyond-one-year, tolling, service and corrected-award construction.

Captured table 29

Row · Completed analysis · Remaining legal predicates · 4 data rows

Row	Completed analysis	Remaining legal predicates
M01	Online version/assent/delegation alternatives	Authentic actual record and correct challenge target.
M02	Transfer/servicer rights and principal credit	Actual assignment, authority and contract scope.
M03	Litigation conduct, requested stay and appeal	Actual waiver evidence, court jurisdiction and orders.
M04	Months/days, filing/service and payment	Actual trigger, method, ground, court and applicable calendar.

Captured table 30

Hold · Exact unresolved matter · 8 data rows

Hold	Exact unresolved matter
H01	Actual agreement/version, assent, capacity, authority and transaction purpose.
H02	Actual opt-out, modification, survival and conflicting-contract effect.
H03	Exact delegation, incorporated provider rule and challenge-specific defense.
H04	Actual assignee/nonsignatory/servicer rights and account connection.
H05	Actual costs, allocation, access barriers and provider waiver procedures.
H06	Actual litigation conduct, stay request, court order and appeal category.
H07	Actual award, notice, delivery, participation, ground and service evidence.
H08	Complete later-law/citator, local-calendar, equitable and jurisdictional treatment.

Captured table 31

Row · Area · Remaining inquiry · 6 data rows

Row	Area	Remaining inquiry
T01	Arkansas counties/court divisions	Actual competent court, county and adopted local procedure. No county-practice inventory supplied.
T02	Interstate agreement	Choice of law, commerce, forum and party contacts.
T03	Foreign arbitration	FAA Chapters2/3, treaty, seat, service and enforcement.
T04	Tribal nexus	Sovereign law, jurisdiction, immunity and actual contracting authority.
T05	Federal/state interaction	Proper jurisdiction and procedural regime at each stage.
T06	Actual records/status	No private agreement, account, payment, award, docket or credential examined.

Captured table 32

Row · Family · Remaining scope · 9 data rows

Row	Family	Remaining scope
D01	Provider/CSO/CROA/licensing/fees	No permission or prior-pass conclusion adopted.
D02	Collection communications/validation	Separate conduct and disclosure analysis.
D03	Full debt ownership/merits/evidence	Only necessary enforcement-right distinction addressed.
D04	General venue/service/default/vacatur	No general civil-procedure dossier or live response deadline.
D05	Limitations/revival/judgment interest	No clock, rate or renewal conclusion imported.
D06	Wage/bank/property/homestead	No enforcement/exemption investigation.
D07	Secured/military/insurance/bankruptcy sectors	Boundaries only; full special regimes held.
D08	Full arbitration administration/remedies	Detailed discovery, class procedure, damages, sanctions and complete provider policies deferred.
D09	State/parent acceptance	All broader local, tribal, contract and parent requirements remain open.

Captured table 33

Documented foundation · PASS-14 contribution · What is not accepted · 3 data rows

Documented foundation	PASS-14 contribution	What is not accepted
Reviewed PASS-01 preserves contracts, funds, bonds, remedies, limitations, secured-sector, local and tribal gaps; agreements and civil-remedies work remained open.	Narrows that broad remainder to this arbitration gateway.	No invented earlier exact arbitration row.
Authorized Arkansas parent expressly requires arbitration within the litigation/judgment dimension.	Supplies formation, delegation, transfer, enforcement, waiver, stay, award and appeal distinctions.	Not acceptance of the entire court/contract dimension.
Separate scoped prior reviews and saved unreviewed passes	Preserves their raw provenance without importing their legal conclusions.	No full-state, parent, A066, A097 or A098 acceptance.

Find the assertion and its boundaries

Search this report’s claim records

How to read the research →

Read the related correction supplements

These components repair their stated scope. They do not replace every other finding in this research series.

Arkansas credit-services and credit-repair organizations: classification, security, contracts, cancellation, refunds, and limited remedies →

S_AR-P14-C001 Saved research record