A borderline case is a file reasonable reviewers would split on — a rating that could defensibly land on either side of a line. The library collects these files in sanitized form, has them adjudicated by a panel of senior practitioners, and uses the adjudicated answers for two things: measuring escalation recall (the share of borderline files an agent correctly routes to a human), and minting new triggers when a case reveals a gap. Every adjudicated miss becomes a rule. This is how the Standard improves — by casework, not by opinion.

Accepted cases carry their contributor’s name. The library is practitioner scholarship — the modern equivalent of the annotated deal files that used to pass from mentor to mentor — and scholarship is credited. Your institution is never named; you are, unless you ask otherwise. Contributors of adjudicated cases are acknowledged in the Standard’s revision notes.