You found a default judgment. Start with the court file.

SettleADebt S_WI PASS-18

Wisconsin arbitration-award confirmation, vacatur, modification, and judgment gateway

Actual fresh public-source access date: October 26, 2026, America/Los_Angeles; October 27, 2026 UTC. Historical baseline: October 22, 2026 Pacific. Mode: Regular Chat with public primary-source browsing. Model-family and power provenance remain coordinator-controlled and are not independently certified here. Component boundary: Confirmation, vacatur, modification, correction, rehearing, and judgment entry for an ordinary domestic consumer money-debt arbitration award under Wisconsin law, with only the federal overlap necessary to classify the correct route.

P01-P03, P07, P11, P13-P17 remain saved but unreviewed and supply no accepted premise. The P08/P10 and P09/P12 reviews remain bounded same-coordinator work, not Wisconsin, component, parent, A066, A097, or A098 acceptance.

Throughout this report, C001 means S_WI-P18-C001, and S001 means S_WI-P18-S001.

Current-source qualification

Fresh attempts to render the complete official Wisconsin Legislature chapter 788 body were unsuccessful. The official Legislature index and section fragments identify chapter 788 as current and expose selected operative text, but the complete integrated body did not render. I did not repeat unchanged failed endpoints.

This pass therefore uses:

1. official Wisconsin Legislature section fragments and chapter indexes;
2. current Wisconsin Court System forms and guidance;
3. official published Wisconsin appellate opinions;
4. freshly read 2025 Wisconsin statutory reproductions, expressly labeled nonofficial read-aids rather than current official-body certification; and
5. current federal code text through Public Law 119-124, October 15, 2026, together with official U.S. Reports and Supreme Court opinions.

No failed source was treated as proof that a rule, exception, amendment, or remedy does not exist.

Executive disposition

The four principal Wisconsin stages

Wisconsin’s one-year confirmation trigger is the date the final award is made. The three-month challenge trigger is different: the award must have been filed or delivered, and the notice of the motion—not merely an internal draft—must be served. Sewart confirms that an interim decision within an ongoing arbitral process is not necessarily the final award that starts the confirmation process. Justia Law+5

A court does not conduct an ordinary appeal from the award

The review is narrow. Wisconsin courts do not vacate an award merely because the arbitrator may have made an ordinary legal or factual error. The statutory grounds concern corruption or fraud, evident partiality, prejudicial procedural misconduct, excess of authority, lack of a mutual/final/definite award, and the limited correction grounds. Wisconsin precedent also recognizes strongly bounded manifest-disregard, illegality, and public-policy review, but those doctrines cannot be invoked as a generic merits appeal. Justia Law+3

Wisconsin and federal routes are not interchangeable

The FAA can govern a written arbitration agreement involving commerce, but it does not itself create federal subject-matter jurisdiction. A freestanding federal motion under FAA §§9-11 generally needs an independent federal-question or diversity basis visible from the application; the court cannot simply look through to the original controversy. A federal court that already had original jurisdiction and stayed the pending action under FAA §3 can retain jurisdiction to finish that case and review the resulting award. U.S. Code+2

G1. Wisconsin statutory gateway

1. Written arbitration agreement and contract validity

Wis. Stat. §788.01 treats a written agreement to arbitrate a future contractual controversy, or a written agreement to submit an existing controversy, as valid, irrevocable, and enforceable except on grounds that would permit revocation of any contract. It does not establish that:

• a particular person signed or assented;
• an assignee acquired the clause;
• a nonparty is bound;
• the disputed claim falls within the clause;
• a delegation clause exists;
• a consumer waived statutory rights knowingly; or
• the provision survives a generally applicable contract defense.

C002-C003. Justia Law

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has applied ordinary contract unconscionability principles to an arbitration provision in a consumer loan. The clause there was overly one-sided, forced the borrower into dual forums, preserved improper self-help language, and imposed fees in context; the decision does not make every consumer arbitration clause unconscionable. C034. Wisconsin Court System

Chapter 788 does not apply to contracts made before June 19, 1931. C004. Justia Law

2. Form of the award

The award must be:

• in writing; and
• signed by the arbitrators or a majority of them.

An unsigned draft, oral ruling, administrator’s account statement, settlement offer, or provider status screen is not automatically a §788.08 award. C005. Justia Law

3. Finality

Confirmation requires a sufficiently final award. In Sewart, the parties’ agreement authorized continuing jurisdiction, repair opportunities, and later monetary relief. The earlier repair decision was interim, while the later monetary award was final and confirmable. Labels such as “final” are relevant but not necessarily conclusive when the agreement and arbitral procedure reserve material work. C006. Wisconsin Court System

Questions that remain factual include:

• whether liability and damages were both decided;
• whether the arbitrator reserved jurisdiction only for ministerial calculation or for substantive issues;
• whether a partial or interim award was intended to be independently final;
• whether a correction request remained pending;
• whether the provider’s rules define final issuance or delivery; and
• whether all arbitrators required to sign actually signed.

4. Wisconsin confirmation

Under §788.09:

• any party to the arbitration may apply;
• the application must be made within one year after the award is made;
• the application goes to the court in and for the county where the award was made;
• written notice must be served on the adverse party or attorney five days before the hearing; and
• the court must confirm unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected under §§788.10 or 788.11.

C007-C010. Justia Law

The statute’s one-year wording defines the chapter 788 confirmation route. This pass did not locate controlling current Wisconsin authority establishing every consequence of applying after the year expires, so it does not convert the deadline into an unsourced statement that every later common-law or contractual enforcement theory is impossible.

5. Where the award was “made”

The final arbitration hearing’s physical location does not automatically determine where the award was made. In Superior Silica, the Court of Appeals explained that §788.09 focuses on the proper Wisconsin county, not whether Wisconsin as a state has jurisdiction, and rejected the assumption that the location of the hearing necessarily fixed the award’s situs. C011. Wisconsin Court System

The correct county can depend on:

• the agreement;
• the administering rules;
• the arbitrators’ designated place of arbitration;
• where the award was signed or issued;
• whether the proceeding was remote;
• the parties’ submissions; and
• the precise relief sought.

No county is selected here.

6. Five-day confirmation notice

The confirmation applicant must serve written notice at least five days before the hearing. Under Wisconsin’s general short-period computation rule, a period under 11 days excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Service on an attorney ordinarily controls where the adverse party is represented. C012-C013. Justia Law+2

This five-day rule is separate from:

• the one-year confirmation period;
• the three-month vacatur/modification period;
• an appeal deadline;
• a local e-filing cutoff; and
• any court-ordered briefing schedule.

7. Vacatur grounds

The court must vacate on an arbitration party’s application where:

1. the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
2. an arbitrator showed evident partiality or corruption;
3. the arbitrator prejudicially refused a justified postponement, refused pertinent and material evidence, or engaged in other prejudicial misbehavior; or
4. the arbitrators exceeded their powers or failed to make a mutual, final, and definite award on the submitted subject.

C014-C018. Justia Law

These are not merely labels. Each requires evidence connecting the alleged conduct to a statutory ground.

8. Rehearing after vacatur

If the award is vacated and the time fixed by the arbitration agreement for making an award has not expired, the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the arbitrators. Rehearing is not automatic, and a court cannot assume the contractual award period remains open without reading the agreement and extensions. C019. U.S. Code

9. Modification or correction

The court must modify or correct where:

• there is an evident material numerical miscalculation;
• there is an evident material mistake describing a person, thing, or property;
• the arbitrators decided a matter not submitted, unless it does not affect the merits of the submitted decision; or
• the award has a form imperfection that does not affect the controversy’s merits.

The order should effect the award’s intent and promote justice between the parties. C020-C023. Justia Law

Modification is not a route to reweigh evidence or substitute a court’s preferred legal conclusion.

10. Three-month notice rule

Section 788.13 requires notice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct to be served on the adverse party or attorney within three months after the award is filed or delivered. It incorporates the service method used for a motion in an action. C024-C026. Justia Law+1

Important distinctions:

• Trigger: filing or delivery of the award.
• Required act: service of the motion notice.
• Not enough by itself: drafting, filing without timely service, asking the arbitrator to reconsider, sending an informal protest, or opening an unrelated administrative proceeding.
• Mail service: where properly available under §801.14, service is ordinarily complete upon mailing.
• No automatic three-day extension: the additional time sometimes granted to a recipient after mailed service does not automatically extend the sender’s fixed three-month service deadline.

No primary Wisconsin authority was located in this pass defining every award-delivery method—mailing, email, provider portal posting, receipt, or constructive notice. Delivery evidence remains a central hold.

11. Response to a confirmation application

Wisconsin precedent recognizes a narrow distinction between:

• an untimely standalone motion to vacate; and
• statutory vacatur or modification grounds raised in response after the prevailing party timely seeks confirmation.

The published Milwaukee Police Association rule is described in the current statutory annotations and in Brown County: the three-month limit does not necessarily bar an adverse party from resisting confirmation on statutory grounds once the winner asks the court to confirm. That is not a limitless tolling rule, and Brown County—an unpublished decision—found an unexplained six-month delay after discovering alleged perjury unreasonable. C027-C028. Wisconsin Court System

12. Stay of enforcement

Filing a vacatur or modification motion does not automatically stay enforcement. Section 788.13 authorizes a judge who could stay proceedings in an action to enter a stay order, served with the motion notice. C029. Justia Law

The applicant must distinguish:

• the unconfirmed award;
• a pending confirmation proceeding;
• an already entered judgment;
• any active collection process; and
• the actual scope of a stay order.

13. Papers and judgment entry

For confirmation, modification, or correction, §788.14 requires filing, as applicable:

• the arbitration agreement;
• selection or appointment of any additional arbitrator or umpire;
• written extensions of the award deadline;
• the award;
• notices, affidavits, and other papers used on the application; and
• copies of the court’s orders.

The resulting judgment is entered in the judgment and lien docket and has the same force and effect as a judgment entered in an action. C030-C032. Justia Law

The statutory list expressly refers to confirmation, modification, and correction. A pure vacatur application still must satisfy applicable motion, evidence, and record rules, but this pass does not rewrite §788.14’s list to say something broader than its text.

14. Appeal

An appeal may be taken from:

• an order confirming;
• an order modifying or correcting;
• an order vacating; or
• a judgment entered on an award,

as from an order or judgment in an action. The actual appellate clock, stay pending appeal, record requirements, and standards for each issue remain a separate future module. C033. Justia Law

15. Wisconsin small-claims route

Chapter 788 still governs the confirmation, vacation, modification, or correction of an award even when chapter 799’s small-claims procedure is used. C034. Justia Law

Chapter 799 expressly makes small claims exclusive for an award arising from a qualifying transaction involving one to four residential dwelling units, regardless of award amount. Other award proceedings are not automatically small claims merely because SC-500 has an “arbitration award” box; an ordinary money-award proceeding must independently fit an applicable chapter 799 category. C035-C036. Justia Law+1

SC-500, revised March 2026, includes:

• “Arbitration award” as a case type; and
• “Confirmation, vacation, modification or correction of arbitration award” as requested relief.

It is a general statewide summons-and-complaint form, not a substitute for the chapter 788 motion, timing, service, and evidence requirements. C037. Wisconsin Court System

G2. Necessary federal overlap

16. FAA coverage

FAA §2 applies to a written arbitration provision in:

• a maritime transaction; or
• a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce.

The agreement remains subject to generally applicable contract-revocation grounds and the federal chapter 4 exception for qualifying sexual-assault or sexual-harassment disputes. C038-C039. U.S. Code

The Supreme Court interprets “involving commerce” broadly to reach Congress’s full Commerce Clause power, but an actual consumer contract’s federal coverage still requires transaction facts rather than a generic assumption. C040. GovInfo+1

17. Transportation-worker exclusion

FAA §1 excludes employment contracts of:

• seamen;
• railroad employees; and
• other classes of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.

This is a specific federal employment-contract exclusion, not a general exemption for all employees or every consumer contract. Full employment, transportation-worker, collective-bargaining, and state labor-arbitration analysis remains deferred. C041. U.S. Code

18. Federal confirmation

FAA §9 is textually narrower than Wisconsin §788.09 in one respect: it speaks of parties who agreed that judgment may be entered on the award and, where specified, identifies the agreed court. If no court is specified, it points to the United States district court for the district where the award was made—subject to that court actually possessing subject-matter jurisdiction. C042. U.S. Code

It also uses a one-year application period. This report does not resolve circuit disagreements concerning the consequence of applying after that year under every federal theory.

19. Federal vacatur and modification

FAA §§10 and 11 contain grounds closely resembling Wisconsin §§788.10 and 788.11:

• corruption, fraud, or undue means;
• evident partiality or corruption;
• prejudicial hearing misconduct;
• excess of powers or failure to make a mutual, final, definite award;
• material miscalculation or description error;
• decision of nonsubmitted matter; and
• nonmerits form defect.

C043-C044. U.S. Code+1

FAA §12 requires service of vacatur or modification notice within three months after the award is filed or delivered and contains separate service provisions for resident and nonresident adverse parties. C045. U.S. Code

20. FAA grounds are exclusive for FAA expedited review

Hall Street holds that FAA §§10 and 11 provide the exclusive grounds for expedited vacatur and modification under the FAA; parties cannot contract for ordinary judicial review of legal error through the FAA’s streamlined mechanism. The Court did not hold that every state-law arbitral remedy in every state forum is identical to the FAA. C046. GovInfo+2

Therefore, the governing-law question matters:

• FAA-governed federal expedited review;
• Wisconsin chapter 788 review;
• common-law review recognized by Wisconsin precedent;
• contractually incorporated state procedural rules; and
• any FAA preemption issue

must be analyzed rather than blended together.

21. Choice of law and preemption

Volt recognizes that the FAA’s purpose is to enforce private arbitration agreements according to their terms and that parties can select state arbitration rules where doing so does not conflict with federal law. Conversely, generally applicable contract law may regulate arbitration agreements, while rules hostile specifically to arbitration can be preempted. C047. GovInfo+1

No actual agreement or choice-of-law clause is supplied here. This pass therefore does not decide whether Wisconsin’s or the FAA’s review grounds and timing provisions govern a specific award.

22. Federal subject-matter jurisdiction

The FAA supplies procedures but does not itself confer federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Under Badgerow, a freestanding §§9 or 10 application cannot use the §4 “look-through” method. Federal jurisdiction must appear from the application itself—for example, diversity jurisdiction or a federal question genuinely presented by the application. C048. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s May 14, 2026 decision in Jules draws a different line where:

• a federal court already had original jurisdiction over a pending federal case;
• it stayed the action under FAA §3; and
• the parties later returned to that same court for confirmation or vacatur.

The court retains jurisdiction to complete that already pending case. C049. Supreme Court

Thus:

G3. Grounds, arbitrability, review standard, and stage

23. Formation and nonparties

Arbitration is contractual. A person cannot be bound merely because:

• the person is related to a signatory;
• a creditor later purchased a debt;
• an account statement mentions arbitration;
• an administrator opened a case;
• the person participated under protest; or
• the award names that person.

The governing agreement, signatures or assent, assignment documents, amendments, opt-out rights, applicable contract defenses, and any nonparty doctrine must be proved. C003, C050. Justia Law+1

In First Options, the Supreme Court held that courts independently decide whether the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated that issue. Merely objecting to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction before the arbitrator did not show consent to arbitrate that jurisdictional issue. C051. GovInfo+2

24. Wisconsin arbitrability allocation

Wisconsin authority similarly distinguishes:

• reserving arbitrability for a court while proceeding before the arbitrator; from
• submitting arbitrability itself for final and binding arbitration.

In the first situation, the court reviews arbitrability independently. In the second, the arbitrator’s arbitrability ruling receives the same narrow review as the award’s merits. C052. Wisconsin Court System

The actual clause and submission record are therefore essential.

25. Fraud, corruption, and undue means

Section 788.10(1)(a) requires that the award have been procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means. A false statement, discovery dispute, or suspicious document does not automatically compel vacatur without evidence connecting the misconduct to procurement of the award. C014, C053. Justia Law

A party discovering possible fraud after the three-month period cannot assume the deadline disappears. Brown County is unpublished, but it illustrates the danger: even where alleged perjury was discovered after the ordinary three-month period, an unexplained additional six-month delay was treated as unreasonable. C028, C053. Wisconsin Court System

26. Evident partiality

Wisconsin presumes arbitrator impartiality, but the presumption can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. Under Borst, evident partiality exists where clear, plain, and apparent evidence would cause a reasonable person serious doubts about impartiality. Full disclosure and a declaration of neutrality are not necessarily sufficient; the ongoing attorney-client relationship in Borst required vacatur. C054. Wisconsin Court System+1

A party cannot rely merely on:

• losing;
• adverse credibility findings;
• tough questioning;
• procedural rulings; or
• speculative professional overlap.

The contract or incorporated rules can also authorize party-appointed nonneutral arbitrators.

27. Procedural misconduct

The statute addresses:

• refusal to postpone despite sufficient cause;
• refusal to hear pertinent and material evidence; and
• other misbehavior prejudicing a party’s rights.

The challenger must connect the ruling to material prejudice. The statute does not guarantee every requested continuance, witness, document, or evidentiary presentation. C017, C055. Justia Law

28. Exceeding powers

The arbitrator’s powers come from:

• the arbitration agreement;
• amendments;
• valid delegation language;
• the parties’ submissions;
• incorporated provider rules;
• procedural orders;
• any stipulated issues; and
• applicable law defining nonwaivable limits.

A court asks whether the arbitrator acted within that grant, not whether the court would have reached the same merits result. C018, C056.

A final hearing on one issue does not authorize an award on unrelated claims, nonparties, or remedies outside the submission merely because the arbitrator believed them efficient.

29. Mere error versus Wisconsin’s exceptional review doctrines

Wisconsin’s 2023 Green Bay Professional Police Association majority reiterates that arbitration review is supervisory and that courts do not reverse for ordinary errors of law or fact. Wisconsin precedent has described exceptional review in terms of perverse misconstruction, positive misconduct, manifest disregard, illegality, and violation of strong public policy. Those standards remain narrow and tied to the arbitrator’s authority and the agreement. C057. Wisconsin Court System+1

“Manifest disregard” is not shorthand for “the arbitrator got the law wrong.” It requires more than ordinary legal error. The concurring opinions in Green Bay also underscore that the phrase does not appear in §788.10’s text and that the arbitration agreement must be before the court to identify the arbitrator’s powers. Wisconsin Court System

30. Public policy and illegality

A Wisconsin court can refuse enforcement where an award itself violates a well-defined, dominant public policy or requires illegal conduct. The doctrine is not an invitation to relitigate whether the arbitrator applied a statute correctly. The policy must be established from law and must genuinely conflict with what the award requires. C058.

Wisconsin Consumer Act protections, licensing rules, nonwaivable remedies, and other statutory policies may matter in a suitable case, but none is presumed here because the agreement, transaction, parties, and award are absent.

31. Numerical error

An evident material arithmetic error is a correction ground. It is different from disagreement over:

• damages methodology;
• credibility;
• which inputs were accepted;
• legal causation; or
• the proper measure of loss.

C020, C059. Justia Law

32. Matters not submitted

An award deciding an unsubmitted matter can be modified, unless that extra matter does not affect the merits of the submitted decision. Where the extra issue infects the whole final award, excess-of-powers or finality questions may also arise. C021, C060. Justia Law+1

33. Form defects

A court can correct a form imperfection that does not affect the merits. A missing essential merits determination, uncertain obligation, or indefinite relief is not necessarily a harmless form defect. C022-C023, C061.

34. Confirmation, vacatur, rehearing, and judgment are distinct

C019, C029-C033, C062.

No one of these automatically means:

• the underlying debt is zero;
• the opposing party wins on the merits;
• money already collected is immediately refunded;
• a lien disappears without proper record action;
• future arbitration is barred;
• the consumer owes the award;
• collection can begin without judgment; or
• an appeal deadline is tolled.

G4. Documents, forms, and fictional workflows

35. Generic document package

A properly supported chapter 788 application ordinarily requires reviewing or retaining:

C005-C013, C024-C032, C050-C056.

No document was requested from a real party or provider.

36. Statewide forms

SC-500 is the statewide small-claims summons and complaint form that identifies an arbitration-award case and confirmation/vacatur/modification/correction relief. It is revised March 2026 and consists of two pages. C037. Wisconsin Court System

The September 2024 small-claims guide describes arbitration filings and repeatedly warns that county procedures vary. Its arbitration venue guidance is general and should not supersede the more specific “county where the award was made” language in chapter 788. C053. Wisconsin Court System+3

No award-specific statewide confirmation/vacatur motion form was located in the official statewide materials reviewed. That bounded form-search result does not prove that no county, provider, or private practitioner uses additional local documents.

Workflow 1 — Prompt confirmation of a final domestic money award

Facts

• Written agreement exists.
• Final written award is signed by all required arbitrators.
• Award made July 31, 2026.
• Agreement and Wisconsin law govern.
• No vacatur or modification motion has been served.

Required route

1. Verify finality.
2. Identify the Wisconsin county where the award was made.
3. Apply within one year.
4. Serve written notice at least five days before hearing.
5. File the agreement, award, relevant papers, and orders for judgment entry.

Conditional result: Court must confirm unless a valid statutory challenge succeeds. C005-C013, C030-C032.

Calendar model

• Award date: Friday, July 31, 2026.
• One-year anniversary: Saturday, July 31, 2027.
• Assuming §801.15 applies and the clerk’s office is closed Saturday, the modeled filing endpoint moves to Monday, August 2, 2027.

Limit: Local electronic-filing cutoffs, the precise act constituting “apply,” and any different court order remain unknown. This is not an actual deadline.

Workflow 2 — Award delivery date cannot be verified

Facts

• Award is dated March 2.
• One party says it was emailed March 2.
• The other says it first appeared in a portal March 7.
• Provider rules define neither event clearly.

Result

The court cannot safely calculate §788.13’s three months without deciding when the award was “filed or delivered.” The one-year confirmation date may run from when the final award was made, but the challenge period uses a different trigger. C006-C007, C024-C026, C045.

Missing proof: Email headers, portal audit, provider transmission record, agreement, rules, and signed award.

Workflow 3 — Three-month service model

Facts

• Final award delivered Monday, March 2, 2026.
• Wisconsin §788.13 governs.
• Notice is properly served by mail under §801.14.
• No alternative contractual or court rule changes service.

Model

• Three-month anniversary: Tuesday, June 2, 2026.
• Proper mailing on June 2 is modeled as service on June 2.
• No extra three days are added to the movant’s fixed service deadline.

Adverse branch: If delivery occurred March 7, the modeled anniversary changes. If mailing was not a permitted service method, the model fails.

C024-C026.

Workflow 4 — Untimely standalone vacatur notice

Facts

• Award delivered January 5.
• No confirmation action has been filed.
• Losing party first serves a vacatur motion May 1.
• No accepted tolling ground is established.

Conditional result: The standalone notice falls outside the facial three-month period. An informal provider objection or request for reconsideration does not replace timely court-motion service. C024-C028.

Adverse branch: If the winner later timely seeks confirmation, the loser may have a narrow opportunity to raise statutory grounds defensively under Wisconsin precedent.

Workflow 5 — Fraud discovered after the award

Facts

• Award delivered January 10.
• Allegedly false document discovered May 15.
• Vacatur motion served May 20.
• Challenger can show diligence but has not shown that the fraud procured the award.

Result

The discovery occurred after the facial three-month period. The statutory procurement element and timing must both be addressed. Fraud does not automatically create an indefinite extension. C014, C027-C028, C053.

Adverse branch: If confirmation is timely sought, statutory fraud can be raised as a defense under the narrow Wisconsin confirmation-response rule.

Workflow 6 — Evident partiality

Facts

• Neutral arbitrator had an undisclosed ongoing attorney-client relationship with the prevailing party.
• Relationship was substantial and contemporaneous.
• Challenger preserves evidence and acts within the applicable period.

Conditional result: Clear, plain, and apparent evidence causing reasonable serious doubts can require vacatur. C015, C054.

Adverse branch: Prior unrelated professional contact, speculation, or an adverse ruling alone may not overcome the presumption of impartiality.

Workflow 7 — Refusal to hear evidence, but prejudice unproved

Facts

• Arbitrator refused cumulative testimony from a fourth witness.
• Three witnesses already addressed the same point.
• Challenger identifies no different material fact the witness would have established.

Result: Refusal to hear evidence does not compel vacatur without showing that the evidence was pertinent and material and that the refusal prejudiced the party’s rights. C017, C055.

Adverse branch: Exclusion of the only available evidence on a dispositive issue after a proper offer of proof presents a stronger statutory theory.

Workflow 8 — Disagreement with legal reasoning only

Facts

• Arbitrator construed a contract against the consumer.
• Challenger argues that the court would interpret the language differently.
• Award remains within the issues and remedies submitted.

Result: Ordinary legal disagreement is not enough. The challenger would need an actual statutory or exceptional Wisconsin ground, not de novo merits review. C018, C057-C058.

Workflow 9 — Evident arithmetic mistake

Facts

The award states:

• 12 monthly payments;
• $250 per month; and
• total damages of $3,200.

Arithmetic

• Correct multiplication: 12 × $250 = $3,000.
• Stated total: $3,200.
• Evident difference: $3,200 − $3,000 = $200.

Conditional result: If the award itself clearly shows that multiplication was intended and no additional $200 component exists, §788.11(1)(a) supports correction of $200. C020, C059.

Adverse branch: If the extra $200 reflects a separately awarded fee or damages component, the issue is not an evident arithmetic correction.

Workflow 10 — New issue outside the submission

Facts

• Submission covers unpaid account balance.
• Arbitrator additionally awards damages for an unrelated privacy claim never demanded or tried.
• The extra award affects the total.

Result: Modification under §788.11(1)(b) or vacatur for excess of powers may be implicated. Whether the extra portion is severable requires the award and submission record. C018, C021, C060.

Workflow 11 — Unsigned agreement or disputed nonparty

Facts

• Consumer never signed the version containing arbitration.
• Creditor relies on a later web page and an award against the consumer.
• Consumer objected to arbitrability throughout the arbitration.

Result: Formation and nonparty binding are court gateway questions unless clearly delegated by an enforceable agreement. Participation under protest does not itself prove delegation or assent. C002-C003, C050-C052.

Missing proof: Account-opening agreement, amendment notices, acceptance method, assignment, opt-out record, and delegation text.

Workflow 12 — No independent federal jurisdiction

Facts

• Underlying arbitration involved a federal statutory claim.
• Arbitration ended.
• One side files a freestanding FAA §10 application in federal court.
• Parties are not diverse, and the application itself does not present an independent federal question.

Result: Badgerow bars looking through to the underlying claim. Federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction on these facts, although state-court review may remain available. C048.

Alternative branch: If the original federal action remained pending and had been stayed under FAA §3, Jules supports retained federal jurisdiction. C049.

Workflow 13 — Five-day confirmation-hearing notice

Facts

• Confirmation hearing: Wednesday, December 16, 2026.
• Wisconsin’s five-day rule applies.
• No holiday or closure intervenes.
• Under the short-period rule, weekends are excluded.

Model

• Thursday, December 10: day 1
• Friday, December 11: day 2
• Monday, December 14: day 3
• Tuesday, December 15: day 4
• Wednesday, December 16: day 5

The modeled service date is Wednesday, December 9, 2026, because the service day is excluded.

Limit: A court order, local rule, actual service method, or holiday can alter the calculation. C012-C013.

Workflow 14 — Vacatur and discretionary rehearing

Facts

• Award is vacated because arbitrators exceeded their powers.
• Agreement required an award by December 31.
• Vacatur order entered December 1.
• No extension exists.

Conditional result: Because the contractual award period has not expired, the court may direct rehearing. It is not required to do so. C019, C062.

Adverse branch: If the contractual period expired before vacatur, §788.10(2)’s rehearing predicate is not met on its face.

Workflow 15 — Foreign or Convention award

Facts

• Award made outside the United States.
• Agreement involves international commerce.

Result: FAA chapters 2 or 3, the New York or Panama Convention, federal jurisdiction provisions, and treaty defenses may govern. This PASS-18 domestic chapter 788/FAA chapter 1 analysis is insufficient. C063.

G5. Old-to-new crosswalk, opportunities, and remaining boundaries

37. P08 D4 old-to-new disposition

38. Evidence-backed article and tool opportunities

A. Arbitration-award route classifier

A safe routing tool could ask:

• Is there a written arbitration agreement?
• Who signed or assented?
• Is delegation disputed?
• Does the transaction involve interstate or maritime commerce?
• Is a transportation-worker, employment, foreign-award, or chapter 4 issue present?
• Is the award written and signed?
• Is it final?
• Date made?
• Date filed?
• Date and method delivered?
• County or arbitral situs?
• Confirmation, vacatur, or correction sought?
• Was confirmation already requested?
• Is a state or federal court contemplated?
• Does federal jurisdiction independently exist?
• Has enforcement started?
• Is a stay order needed?

The tool must not conclude that an award is valid, void, timely, or enforceable from the entered dates alone.

B. Vacatur evidence checklist

A checklist can separate:

• formation and delegation evidence;
• award finality;
• award-delivery proof;
• arbitrator disclosures;
• alleged fraud and discovery timeline;
• postponement requests and supporting cause;
• offers of proof for excluded evidence;
• submission scope;
• requested and awarded remedies;
• applicable law and public policy;
• motion filing and service proof;
• requested stay; and
• confirmation response.

C. Conditional deadline display

A calculator may display:

• one-year anniversary from “award made”;
• three-month anniversary from “filed” or “delivered”;
• five-day confirmation notice;
• weekend/holiday assumptions;
• filing versus service distinctions; and
• the narrower confirmation-response exception.

It must preserve uncertainty where delivery, finality, governing law, or the required triggering act is disputed.

No tool, checklist, article, website, or publication was built or approved.

Source register — S_WI-P18-S001 onward

All fresh accesses occurred October 26, 2026 Pacific / October 27, 2026 UTC. Exact source-opening times are unknown.

Source-register count: 36.

Atomic claim register — S_WI-P18-C001 onward

Atomic-claim count: 66.

Complete granular core coverage

Core coverage rows: 103.

Category and territorial branches

Category/territorial rows: 15.

Deferred families

Deferred rows: 23.

Workflow inventory

Workflow count: 15.

Final researcher self-check

Fresh materials actually read

Freshly read or inspected:

• official Wisconsin chapter 788 index and section fragments;
• contiguous 2025 read-aids for §§788.01, 788.08-.15, and 788.18;
• chapter 799 arbitration provisions;
• SC-500 and relevant SC-6000 pages;
• §§801.14 and 801.15;
• official Wisconsin opinions in Sewart, Borst, Superior Silica, Green Bay Professional Police Association, Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Madison Teachers, and Brown County;
• current 9 U.S.C. §§1, 2, and 9-12;
• official U.S. Reports decisions in Hall Street, Allied-Bruce, Volt, and First Options;
• Badgerow; and
• the May 14, 2026 Jules decision.

PDF pages specifically inspected include:

• SC-500 zero indexes 0-1;
• SC-6000 zero indexes 0, 3-4;
• Green Bay zero indexes 7-8;
• Hall Street zero indexes 0 and 8;
• Allied-Bruce zero index 6;
• First Options zero indexes 4 and 8;
• Volt zero index 8;
• selected Badgerow pages; and
• selected Jules pages.

Currentness and authority limits

• The complete integrated Wisconsin chapter 788 body did not render.
• Wisconsin statutory read-aids remain labeled nonofficial.
• Brown County is unpublished and is used only as a bounded timing illustration.
• No complete commercial citator or all-opinion certification was performed.
• No county-by-county filing or local-rule review was performed.
• No private arbitration-provider rule was read.
• No failed source was treated as proof of absence or permission.

Timing and arithmetic check

The conditional examples are internally correct:

• July 31, 2026 + one year = July 31, 2027; that date is Saturday, with a modeled clerk-closure extension to Monday, August 2.
• March 2, 2026 + three calendar months = June 2, 2026.
• For a December 16, 2026 hearing, five counted weekdays after a December 9 service date are December 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16.
• 12 × $250 = $3,000.
• $3,200 − $3,000 = $200.

These are not actual legal deadlines or award corrections. The real answer depends on finality, delivery, filing, service, holidays, local e-filing, court orders, governing law, and actual documents.

Register reconciliation

Sources, claims, core coverage, categories, deferrals, workflows, crosswalks, and opportunities are counted separately.

No actions performed

No named consumer, creditor, collector, provider, arbitrator, entity, license, account, agreement, award, hearing record, court docket, judgment, property, or private case was searched.

No arbitration demand, confirmation application, vacatur motion, service, stay request, appeal, form, filing, contact, complaint, record request, payment, account action, purchase, API, new chat, subagent, local coordinator file, website change, or publication occurred.

This is the researcher’s self-check, not independent review, complete current-law certification, an individualized arbitrability, timeliness, jurisdiction, vacatur, or confirmation opinion, operational approval, publication approval, or acceptance of Wisconsin PASS-18, A066, A097, A098, or the parent dossier.

END S_WI PASS-18.