Every entry in this category describes work defined by a forum. A policy sets elements, a statute enumerates factors, a rule of procedure decides what is in front of the decision-maker at all — and the technical work is shaped, from the first hour, by which of those applies. The forensic category answers "what does the record show." This one answers "what does this proceeding require, and what can an expert properly supply to it."
The forum is the organizing fact
A domain dispute can run as an administrative proceeding under a registration policy, as a statutory action in court, or as an action against the name itself where no person can be brought before the court. Each route runs on a different clock, with a different evidentiary posture and a different appetite for material. An administrative proceeding is a paper exercise with no discovery and a short response window, so the annex set has to be self-contained and dated on the day it is filed. A court case has discovery, which means records held by the other side can be obtained — and also means everything relied on becomes discoverable in the other direction.
Four disciplines cover this category. Policy and statutory proceedings is the largest: what each forum requires, element by element, and what an expert supplies to it. Trademark and confusion covers the comparison work — whether a string is confusingly similar to a mark, and whether a variant was deliberate rather than accidental. Valuation and damages covers what a name was worth and what a diversion cost, stated as method rather than as a number pulled from a marketplace listing. Attribution appears here as well as in the forensic category, because a stolen or hijacked name reaches a forum as a control timeline: who held the name, when that changed, and what records show the change.
What an expert supplies, and what an expert does not
The boundary is worth stating before the entries rather than inside them. An expert supplies the technical record and, where the question calls for it, an opinion built on that record with its method and its limits stated. An expert does not decide whether an element is satisfied. That is the tribunal's job, and a technical declaration that reaches across the line into legal conclusions tends to be discounted in whole rather than in part.
In practice that means a declaration is written to be useful to a decision-maker who is not a technical specialist: each source named and dated, each retrieval described well enough to be repeated, each inference separated from the observation it rests on, and each gap stated as a gap. The most valuable sentence in a technical declaration is often the one that says what the record does not show.
The field at the top of every entry
These entries carry the same answer-first field as the forensic ones — documentary, analytical or procedural — and in this category the distribution is informative.
Most policy work is procedural: the deliverable is an annex set and a declaration organized against the elements a policy sets out, and its quality is measured by whether a panel can follow it without a technical background. The comparison and valuation entries are analytical: they produce an opinion, and an opinion is only as good as the method disclosed with it. A few are documentary where the work is dominated by retrieval and preservation. Reading the field first tells a retaining attorney which kind of challenge to expect — a completeness challenge, a methodology challenge, or an authentication challenge — and those are three different preparations.
What the strip under each heading records
The same four fields as the forensic category, read the same way. Produces names the artifact: an indexed annex set, a factor-by-factor matrix, a valuation report, a dated chronology. Sources names where the material comes from. How it is obtained separates what is publicly retrievable from what requires legal process, which in this category is the difference between an exhibit that exists on the day the complaint is filed and one that exists only if a subpoena issued in time. Authority cites the policy paragraph, statutory subsection or rule the entry describes, so the description can be checked against the instrument rather than against a summary of it.
What is not in this category
No named cases, courts, dockets, parties, panels, opposing experts or law firms, including matters of public record. No counts of engagements, reports or testimony. No outcome claims of any kind: nothing here suggests that retaining a technical expert affects a result, and any page that implied it would be describing something other than expert work.
It is also not legal advice, and the distinction is sharper here than anywhere else on the site. These entries describe what published policies and rules say and what technical material bears on the questions they ask. They do not tell a reader what their position is, which forum to choose, or what to file. Every one of them assumes counsel is directing the matter, because the choice of route has consequences — for cost, for timing, for what can be obtained in discovery, and for what other actions remain available afterwards — that only counsel can weigh.
Where the United States framework applies and where it does not
Some of this material is jurisdiction-specific and says so. The statutory entries describe United States federal law and the evidentiary framework that goes with it. The policy entries describe contractual dispute-resolution mechanisms that apply worldwide because they are written into the registration agreement rather than into any one country's law, which is why a complaint and a court action can proceed on entirely different assumptions about the same domain name.
An entry that describes a US-specific rule marks it. An entry that describes a policy of global application marks that too. Confusing the two produces an annex set built for the wrong reader.
How to read this index
If the forum is already chosen, read the entry for that forum first and then the forensic entries it cross-links to, in the order the elements are argued rather than the order the records were collected. If the forum is not yet chosen, the comparison guide is the better starting point: it sets the three routes side by side on the dimensions that actually differ — remedy, speed, evidentiary appetite, cost structure and what each one forecloses.
Either way, preservation runs first. Every entry in this category depends on records that were captured while they still existed, and no amount of procedural care later recovers a page that was changed the day after the complaint was filed. That is why the evidence pillar sits alongside the proceedings pillar in the guides rather than beneath it.