Phase gate: document production is running ahead of the arbitration budget

Matter ARB-2026-0019 · Firm X · ICC arbitration · document production · raised at 68% of matter budget · a cost difference prompts a scope question, not an automatic cut

Budget trajectory by phase

Spent vs budget vs comparable median

640K

Pleadings · budget 600K

1.42M of 1.2M

Document production

fcst 950K

Witness and expert · budget 800K

fcst 700K

Hearing · budget 600K

fcst 220K

Award and costs · budget 200K

Spent to date$2.31M of $3.40M · 2.7% of amount in disputePredicted total cost to award$4.6M · 5.3% of amount in dispute · p overrun 0.70Comparable median, $50–150M in dispute$3.1M · 3.2% of amount in disputeMain driversproduction expanded to 11 custodians; partner share 39%; parallel local-counsel research

Settle vs arbitrate

Recommendation confidence 0.72

Amount in dispute Claimant's demand Last settlement offer Predicted cost-to-go to award Settlement ratio p50 (× claim) Expected award ratio if arbitrated

Arbitrate to award

—

Settle before the hearing

—

Expected saving from the settlement path: —. Four JV cost-recovery disputes settled before the hearing this year at 0.58–0.66× claim with an average avoided cost-to-go of $1.9M.

Request settlement mandate at $53.3M Re-budget to $4.6M Re-staff: cap partner at 25%Arbitrate, note reason

What changed since the last gate

Production expanded from 6 to 11 custodians after procedural order 4.
Partner share rose to 39%; a second partner joined for the site visit.
Local counsel in Luanda duplicated research already billed by Firm X.

Comparable unit of work

UnitICC/LCIA JV dispute · $50–150M · document productionMatched onAmount band, seat (Paris/London), governing law family, custodian count bandExcludedState-party disputes, ICSID, consolidated proceedingsCohortn=42 · through 30 SepMatched median$880K for this phaseCurrent forecast$1.42M (+$540K)

Question for the firm first. What extra volume or complexity explains the difference? Request scope, staffing and approved exceptions before challenging the fee.

Draft scope clarification

Provision read-across

Provision read-across: at the current trajectory legal cost reaches 5.3% of the amount in dispute against a 3.2% benchmark; the JV cost-recovery provision does not change without the JV commercial lead's sign-off. Flagged to the controller. Accruals and reserves.

Decision log

Every option taken here is recorded with the forecast it was based on, so the model can be scored on realized outcomes. Dispute and permit gate decisions this quarter: 64 · settled 22 · scoped 19 · re-budgeted 15 · proceeded as planned 8.