How to file
Email [email protected] with Appeal and the constituent name in the subject line. Everything §03.2 requires goes in the first message where possible — an appeal missing its evidence starts its clock on the same day, but is more likely to come back asking for something.
There is no form, no account, and no fee. There is never a fee: see the conflict policy.
What can be appealed
Anything factual about a row.
| Ground | Example |
|---|---|
| Wrong attribution | a payTo credited to us that is not the appellant's, or theirs credited elsewhere |
| Missing attribution | a live x402 seller whose settling wallet is not in the graph, so it sits at T2 with zero volume |
| Wrong tier | evidence that a probe_status or eligibility call is incorrect |
| Wrong settled volume | the 30-day figure disagrees with the appellant's own records |
| Wrong exclusion | a wallet on the circular/flagged or facilitator denylist that should not be |
The methodology itself, the weighting basis, or a decision that a constituent's real volume is too small to qualify. Those are methodology changes (§01.6), not errors, and they go through an ADR — not an appeal, and never as a favour to the party asking.
Evidence required
An appeal without evidence is a request, and requests do not move the index.
Every appeal states the constituent, the specific row and field disputed, the period, and what the appellant asserts the correct value is.
By ground
- Attribution (wrong or missing). The wallet must be self-declared by the seller at a fetchable location: a live 402 whose payment requirements carry the
payTo(body orpayment-requiredheader), a.well-known/x402.json, or a CDP Bazaar registration under the domain. Paddock verifies it independently by probing that location — the appellant's assertion is a pointer, never the proof. A parsedpayTois the only positive signal; an HTTP 200 at a well-known path is not evidence, because a single-page app returns one for any path. - Tier or probe status. A reproducible request — method, URL, and the response — that Paddock can re-run.
- Settled volume. On-chain transaction references for the disputed period.
- Exclusion. Evidence addressing the specific finding: for a circular flag, the external-payer relationships the detection did not see.
A statement of ownership, an invoice, a screenshot, or a signed letter cannot establish that a wallet settles for a domain. Only something published at the domain, or observable on-chain, can.
Service levels
Business days are Monday to Friday, UTC. The clock starts on receipt of the appeal, not on receipt of a complete one.
Paddock acknowledges an appeal within 5 business days of receipt. The acknowledgement confirms receipt, issues a reference the appellant can quote, and — where the appeal is incomplete — names exactly what is missing.
Paddock resolves an appeal within 30 calendar days of the acknowledgement, with a written decision stating the outcome and the evidence relied on.
If a resolution needs more time, Paddock communicates the extension before day 30, with a new date.
Effect of a decision
| Outcome | When it takes effect |
|---|---|
| Upheld, or upheld in part | at the next rebalance, or off-cycle under §02.3 if material |
| Declined, or inconclusive | the row does not change; the decision is published either way (§03.4) |
These are the only timing commitments Paddock makes on an appeal. No stage of the process carries a tighter deadline, and an appeal filed against a provisional constituent list is not promised a decision before that rebalance takes effect.
An appeal filed against a provisional list is still worth filing early — it is more likely to be decided before the effective date, and it is the reason the provisional list is published five days ahead at all. But “more likely” is not a promise, and this page does not make one. Where such an appeal is upheld after the rebalance has taken effect, the change is given effect off-cycle under §02.3.
Paddock is a solo operation. These targets are set to be met by one person, not to sound impressive. If they cannot be met they will be lengthened publicly, not quietly missed — and lengthening them is a dated entry in the corrections log, because a service level is a published commitment and changing one silently is exactly the failure this whole document exists to prevent.
Outcomes
Four, and every one is recorded.
| Outcome | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Upheld | the appellant is right; the row changes |
| Upheld in part | some fields change |
| Declined | the evidence does not establish the claim. The decision states what would have |
| Inconclusive | the evidence is credible but cannot be verified from any source Paddock can reach. The row does not change, and the inconclusive finding is published beside it |
Inconclusive exists so that “we could not verify this” is never silently recorded as “this is false”. It is the same discipline as PROBE-INCONCLUSIVE in §01.2.
A declined appeal is published too, with its reason. An appeals process whose declines are invisible reads as a process with no declines.
Logging
Every appeal enters an appeals register with: reference, date received, constituent, ground, outcome, decision date, and effect.
An upheld appeal that changes a published figure — or its basis — also gets a corrections-log entry, per the standing disclosure rule: factual, one entry, no narrative, stating what changed, from what to what, and whether anyone who quoted the old figure needs to restate it.
An appeal that changes nothing published does not get a corrections-log entry. The register is the record for those. The corrections log is for published figures — and for the published commitments on these four pages.
Who decides
Today: the repository owner. There is no independent committee, and this document does not pretend otherwise — a solo operation with an invented oversight board is worse than one that says it is solo.
What substitutes for independence is that the evidence standard in §03.2 is the same one Paddock's own promotions must clear. A constituent's wallet enters the attribution graph through the same automated gate, requiring the same self-declared proof, whether it arrives by appeal or by our own research. The gate is fail-closed: no evidence, no promotion, regardless of who is asking.
Conflicts. Where an appellant has any commercial relationship with Paddock, that relationship is disclosed in the decision record. See the conflict policy — and note that a commercial relationship cannot buy an appeal outcome, which is the first of the four firewall rules.