Most teams are still treating it as an afterthought.
When you consider AI for arbitration, you probably think about drafting, research, and perhaps outcome prediction. Those use cases can speed up first drafts, help you digest background materials, and support analysis.
But another use case, that can have a bigger impact, is structuring the evidentiary record itself.
Arbitration teams lose time, margin, and sometimes credibility when the record fragments. The record arrives in waves and at scale: contracts and amendments, email chains, notices, internal approvals, operational data, board minutes, expert reports, witness statements, and then transcripts. Each new piece of information can shift the chronology or reframe events.
Across the industry, proceedings are moving faster, while records continue to grow, particularly in multi-party and multi-contract matters. The ICC reported 894 new cases in 2025 and 1,869 ongoing matters, its highest-ever pending caseload, alongside increased use of emergency arbitrators and expedited proceedings.
One environment. One record.
Wexler tackles the problem of a growing, scattered record by turning it into a structured, source-linked corpus. It ingests documents directly, extracts the text, expands attachments, and indexes the material in one environment. It identifies factual assertions and links each to its source sentence, then places events into a chronology that updates as new production arrives and, where procedure permits, as hearing transcripts become available. This gives you a consistent factual base for case assessment, submissions, expert instructions and hearing preparation.
Recent cases show that record integrity drives outcomes and post-award risk. In the Ontario Aroma franchise dispute, the court declined to set aside the award and focused on whether the tribunal decided the issues submitted and gave intelligible reasons, rather than inviting a merits appeal in disguise. Wexler would support that discipline by keeping factual propositions traceable to source evidence as pleadings, witness work and expert analysis develop.
Dubai proceedings linked to an Egyptian solar project highlight another pressure point. The Dubai Court of First Instance relied heavily on a court-appointed Egyptian law expert on termination, good faith, penalty clauses, and regulatory approvals and public policy issues. Those questions turned on sequencing and documentary proof, including what approvals existed and when, what notices were served, how termination was exercised, and what the record showed about performance. Wexler would have supported that work by structuring approvals, notices, milestones, and correspondence into a source-linked chronology that updates as material is added, giving counsel and the expert a single evidentiary base.
You see the same theme in post-award disputes. In New York proceedings linked to Shell’s ICC arbitration against Venture Global, the court refused to vacate the award, declined further evidence gathering, and described Shell’s misconduct theory as “pure speculation” absent clear and convincing proof. Wexler delivers the discipline that courts implicitly demand by helping teams maintain a single, source-linked record throughout the arbitration, with factual assertions tied to specific sentences and organised in a chronology that updates as new material is added, making it easier to show what the record supported at each stage of the case and what it did not.
Arbitration is increasingly record-driven, and the record is getting larger. Teams that structure it early, keep it coherent as production expands, and test expert and witness accounts against the documentary sequence maintain control throughout the case. Wexler is built for that.
Here’s how it works:
A structured arbitration record from instruction to award
Witness statements, exhibits, expert reports and transcripts accumulate, but arbitration requires a coherent, defensible record. Wexler structures the entire record in one environment. It extracts factual assertions from uploaded material, links each assertion to its source sentence, and organises events into a chronology that updates as new production and, where permitted, live testimony are added. From instruction to award, the case stays aligned with the evidence.
Establish the record early
Upload foundational documents and Wexler builds a structured corpus within minutes. It indexes contracts, notices, correspondence and internal materials, then places events in time with source links for each point. Early case assessment proceeds from a tested chronology rather than a provisional reconstruction.
Build strategy on what the evidence shows
As case theory develops, Wexler keeps the timeline anchored to the documents. If documents describe timing differently or characterise the same event inconsistently, Wexler keeps those differences visible and traceable. This supports decisions on what the record clearly supports, what remains disputed, and where further evidence or clarification is required before positions are fixed.
Draft submissions with evidence already connected
When preparing a statement of claim, defence or memorial, Wexler allows each material allegation to be traced to the document and sentence that supports it. If later production qualifies or contradicts a point, it becomes visible before the submission is finalised. This reduces the risk of advancing assertions the record cannot sustain.
Integrate production without rebuilding the case
As new documents are added, Wexler incorporates them into the same corpus and updates the chronology. Emails, reports and attachments connect to existing events and issues without manual reconstruction of timelines. The factual structure remains stable as the dataset expands.
Test expert assumptions before they are exposed
Expert reports depend on factual inputs. Wexler allows assumed facts to be checked against the documentary record before reports are finalised. Termination dates, notices, performance data and key communications remain traceable to source and visible within the chronology. This helps ensure expert analysis rests on facts supported by the evidence.
Prepare cross-examination from the full record
Cross-examination often turns on how a meeting, decision or instruction is described across the record. Wexler can surface all references to that event in one place, link each account to source, and position each within the chronology. Preparation draws from the complete record rather than isolated extracts.
Test live testimony against the record
Where procedural rules permit, transcripts can be added as the hearing proceeds. Oral evidence becomes part of the same structured corpus. Testimony can be checked against prior written evidence in real time, and the chronology updates accordingly. This allows inconsistencies to be identified while the arbitration is still live.
Find every fact with Wexler
Control over the record is the next major advantage in arbitration. Wexler provides a structured, source-linked evidentiary foundation that remains coherent as the case develops. From first upload to final award, the facts stay organised, traceable and testable within one continuously maintained record.