{"id":906105,"date":"2026-09-10T15:34:10","date_gmt":"2026-09-10T21:34:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=906105"},"modified":"2026-09-10T15:34:15","modified_gmt":"2026-09-10T21:34:15","slug":"expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/","title":{"rendered":"Methods for\u00a0Presenting\u00a0Expert Evidence"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Chi Liu and Cheryl Ng Huiling | <a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener nofollow\">Global Arbitration Review<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Introduction<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-witness-testimony-in-construction-disputes\/\">Expert evidence<\/a> plays an indispensable role in modern international arbitration. As commercial disputes become increasingly complex and technical, arbitral tribunals regularly confront issues requiring specialised knowledge beyond their expertise. Whether addressing questions of quantum valuation, construction engineering, intellectual property, financial accounting or specialised industry practices, tribunals may depend on expert witnesses to provide the technical foundation necessary for informed decision-making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The landscape of expert evidence in international arbitration has evolved significantly in recent decades. What was once a relatively informal and&nbsp;<em>ad hoc<\/em>&nbsp;process has matured into a sophisticated framework governed by internationally recognised soft law instruments, institutional rules and evolving best practices. Most notably, the International Bar Association\u2019s \u201cRules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration\u201d (2020) (the IBA Rules) and the \u201cRules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration\u201d (2018) (the Prague Rules) have standardised many aspects of expert evidence presentation while preserving arbitration\u2019s procedural flexibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Whereas party-appointed experts were historically viewed as advocates for their appointing parties, contemporary standards increasingly emphasise the expert\u2019s primary duty to assist the tribunal rather than to advocate for parties. To assist itself, the tribunal is empowered under many of the latest institutional rules to appoint its own experts. This evolution in the rules (1) reflects broader concerns about \u201chired gun\u201d experts and (2) desires to enhance the reliability and objectivity of expert evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Procedural innovations such as joint expert statements and witness conferencing (better known as hot-tubbing) have developed to manage expert evidence more efficiently and to narrow technical disputes to core disagreements genuinely requiring tribunal resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Against this backdrop, practitioners face recurring challenges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>How should experts be selected to maximise credibility and effectiveness?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>What content and organisational approaches produce the most persuasive expert reports?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>How can expert independence and neutrality be safeguarded while recognising the realities of party appointment?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>How should experts be prepared for testimony and cross-examination?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>When and how should hot-tubbing be employed?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This chapter addresses these practical questions by examining soft law frameworks, analysing common practices and providing concrete guidance for counsel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Soft law frameworks<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Whereas institutional rules provide the foundational procedural framework for arbitration, soft law instruments offer crucial supplementary guidance for managing expert evidence. The landscape is primarily shaped by the IBA Rules and the Prague Rules, which generally reflect common law and civil law traditions and philosophies, respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The IBA Rules have long served as the predominant standard and lean somewhat towards an adversarial approach. They are perceived as a soft codification of common law practices and procedures. The IBA Rules establish a comprehensive framework that primarily envisions party-appointed experts, setting clear expectations for the contents of expert reports, including mandatory declarations of independence and detailed statements of the facts and methodologies relied on. A hallmark of the IBA Rules is their facilitation of rigorous testing of expert evidence through cross-examination, as well as provisions for hot-tubbing,<a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-1\"><sup>[1]<\/sup><\/a>&nbsp;designed to narrow the issues in dispute before the hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Prague Rules were subsequently introduced as an alternative. They are influenced by the inquisitorial traditions of civil law jurisdictions, encouraging tribunals to take a more proactive role in fact-finding. It is noteworthy that, unlike the IBA Rules, the Prague Rules go further in giving control to the tribunal. For example, they expressly permit the tribunal to make an adverse inference if a party does not pay its share of the expert costs or provide necessary access to the subject matter, documents or information.<a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-2\"><sup>[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Party-appointed experts versus tribunal-appointed experts<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The general preference regarding the use of experts in international arbitration is still that they should be appointed by the parties. Although experts still have an obligation to remain independent and impartial, the reality is that parties obviously appoint experts who hold opinions that support their case. Counsel selecting their own experts can thus ensure that technical evidence and overall case strategy are not inconsistent. This control allows parties to coordinate expert evidence with factual narratives and legal arguments, presenting a cohesive case strategy rather than fragmented technical evidence divorced from broader case theories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The ability to select experts whose qualifications, experience and analytical approaches suit the specific case is a significant practical advantage. Parties can identify experts with relevant industry experience, familiarity with applicable technical standards or a good track record in similar disputes. This targeted selection may not always be possible with tribunal-appointed experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, with party-appointed experts, counsel must walk a tightrope. Instructions must be clear and coordinated, while bearing in mind that overly prescriptive instructions can potentially risk experts\u2019 independence. Counsel must also recall that in certain jurisdictions, instructions to the experts may not necessarily be privileged and, in certain situations, may be disclosed to the opposing party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Appointment of experts by the tribunal is rooted in the civil law inquisitorial tradition and shifts control somewhat from parties to arbitrators. Because the financial tie between expert and party is removed, the tribunal-appointed expert is theoretically free from the partisan bias that may affect party-appointed experts. That said, while parties from civil law jurisdictions may be more comfortable ceding such control to the tribunal, parties from common law jurisdictions may be uneasy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Tribunal-appointed experts may raise concerns of trust. Parties may distrust experts they did not unilaterally select, particularly regarding how critical aspects of their cases are presented. This trust deficit may undermine confidence, even though parties typically pay for the tribunal-appointed experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Practical issues for counsel<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>Client management<\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>Tribunal-appointed experts pose a challenge in client management. Counsel must explain to their clients that they are required to pay out of their advance on costs for an expert they did not choose, and over whose work they have limited control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>Costs<\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>While intended to reduce costs, tribunal-appointed experts often increase them for clients in practical terms. A party may find it necessary to hire their own \u201cshadow\u201d experts behind the scenes to review the tribunal expert\u2019s report and assist in drafting cross-examination questions. This means that parties not only pay for the tribunal-appointed expert but may also have to pay for their own expert, or experts. Furthermore, parties may not subsequently be able to recover costs related to the hiring of their own experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>Efficiency<\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>The use of party-appointed experts may create significant inefficiencies. Multiple rounds of sequential expert reports, preparation time and lengthy cross-examination consume substantial time and money. Each party incurs its own fees for experts addressing identical issues, and counsel also incur time and cost for instructing, preparing and examining the experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That said, there are also benefits in having a party-appointed expert. Sequential expert reports allow iterative refinement. Initial reports present primary analyses; supplementary reports address opposing reviews, incorporate new evidence and refine conclusions as proceedings develop. This process can strengthen technical positions progressively and allow counsel to adjust strategy, where possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>Cross-examination<\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>Cross-examination of a tribunal-appointed expert may differ from cross-examination of a party-appointed expert, in that it may require extra tact. Unlike an opposing expert, a tribunal-appointed expert may have been chosen or approved by the tribunal. Aggressive questioning may backfire and offend the tribunal; counsel must draw the tribunal\u2019s attention to the expert\u2019s shortcomings without being aggressive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>Setting aside<\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>Due process concerns may arise for tribunals that appoint their own experts. The expert may effectively become the \u201cfourth arbitrator\u201d, usurping decision-making functions rather than merely assisting with technical matters. If tribunals defer excessively to tribunal-appointed experts, they effectively delegate decision-making to technical experts rather than independently evaluating evidence. Awards that simply adopt tribunal-appointed expert conclusions without independent analysis may be vulnerable to challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Selecting experts<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>When evaluating potential experts, counsel and tribunals should look beyond a basic r\u00e9sum\u00e9 and consider several practical and strategic factors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Common considerations in selecting experts<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><em>Practical experience versus academic credentials<\/em>: Although academic qualifications are important, practical experience in the relevant industry or field may be more persuasive to an arbitral tribunal. Experts with stellar academic credentials can be undermined if they lack real-world insight into the specific technical issues in dispute.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Communication skills<\/em>: A good expert must be able to translate complex, highly technical issues into clear, simple language that the tribunal can easily understand.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Demeanour and testimonial experience<\/em>: Parties should evaluate experts\u2019 experience with testifying and cross-examination. They need to be resilient, calm and able to convey their opinions clearly without becoming adversarial, frustrated or arrogant. This is especially important if the parties or tribunal choose hot-tubbing, which requires experts who can confidently debate peers without being overshadowed by more forceful personalities.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Cost and availability<\/em>: Practical considerations, such as experts\u2019 fee structure and their availability to commit to the procedural timetable and hearing dates, are essential. Experts who have too many engagements can frustrate tribunals when trying to fix deadlines or evidentiary hearing dates.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Party-appointed experts<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>For party-appointed experts, the selection process involves rigorous due diligence by counsel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>Conducting interviews<\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>Parties may interview potential candidates prior to the appointment of an expert. This allows a party to examine each expert\u2019s qualifications and experience, explain the dispute, test their preliminary views on the case and assess how well they communicate. If the IBA Rules are adopted, the party or party representative should disclose their identity and the reason for making contact before seeking any information from the potential expert.<a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-3\"><sup>[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>Checking past work and relationships<\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>Before appointing an expert, it is crucial to research their past written work, academic publications and prior testimony (if reported). If an expert has previously expressed views that contradict the position they are taking in the arbitration, it can severely damage their credibility during cross-examination. Similarly, when preparing for cross-examination of the opposing expert, counsel should also check the opposing expert\u2019s past written work, academic publications and prior testimony (if reported).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Counsel should also check for any past or present commercial relationships with the parties, the tribunal or the law firm itself. For example, relying on an expert who has been appointed by the same law firm dozens of times can lead the tribunal to view that expert as a \u201chired gun\u201d rather than an objective expert.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>Substantive alignment with case theory<\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>Counsel must frankly establish whether the potential expert is substantively \u201con board\u201d with the party\u2019s case theory. If the expert\u2019s independent professional opinion does not align with the party\u2019s position, the party might be better off finding another expert or adjusting its legal strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Tribunal-appointed experts<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>When the tribunal decides to appoint its own expert, considerations of neutrality and party consultation come into play.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>Party consultation<\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>Major arbitration rules dictate that a tribunal must consult with the parties before appointing an expert (although the tribunal is not bound by the parties\u2019 views). For example, the Prague Rules allow the tribunal to appoint an expert at the request of a party or on its own initiative and following consultation with the parties.<a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-4\"><sup>[4]<\/sup><\/a>&nbsp;The IBA Rules also state that the tribunal may appoint an expert after consulting with the parties.<a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-5\"><sup>[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>Defining criteria and candidate lists<\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>The tribunal may ask the parties to agree on a joint nomination. If they cannot agree, the tribunal might ask the parties to produce a list of required qualifications and propose a shortlist of candidates. The tribunal may then attempt to select an expert whose name appears on both parties\u2019 lists, or choose an independent candidate themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Objecting to experts<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>Objections to the opposing party\u2019s expert or the tribunal\u2019s expert may take several forms, such as alleging a conflict of interest, or challenging an expert\u2019s qualifications or methodology. A party may also object to a tribunal-appointed expert because of costs or availability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Report drafting<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Expert reports serve as the central pillar of the expert\u2019s testimony, and the drafting of reports demands strategic thought, precision and clarity. Guidelines or requirements for drafting expert reports in international arbitration can be found in the institutional rules, so it is important to check the relevant rules in order to comply with the procedural requirements. Counsel should take care to bear in mind any specific nuances or requirements that the IBA Rules or Prague Rules may contain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The expert\u2019s role is to translate their specialised knowledge into a format that the tribunal can understand. Some key drafting considerations are set out below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Structure and form<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>The organisation of the expert report is as important as its substance. A well-structured report will guide the tribunal through the expert\u2019s reasoning. Note that the IBA Rules are more prescriptive in what must be included in a report in comparison to the Prague Rules.<a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-6\"><sup>[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, regardless of whether the IBA Rules or Prague Rules are adopted, expert reports should include most, if not all, of the following components:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><em>Executive summary<\/em>: The expert report should begin with a concise overview summarising the key findings and conclusions. This allows the tribunal to grasp the main points quickly before delving into the detailed explanations.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Detailed sections with clear headings and subheadings<\/em>: The expert should break the analysis into logical parts with descriptive headings that guide the reader through the reasoning. Descriptive headings help the tribunal recall the information later.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>The expert\u2019s qualifications<\/em>: This section should outline the expert\u2019s professional background, credentials and relevant experience in the subject matter. Note that the IBA Rules require the expert to provide their full name, address, background, training and experience.<a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-7\"><sup>[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Statement of independence and impartiality<\/em>: This is required under the IBA Rules as well as some institutional rules.<a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-8\"><sup>[8]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Note that the IBA Rules also require the expert to state any past or present relationship with any of the parties.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Scope and instructions received<\/em>: The expert should clearly outline the issues they were asked to address. This defines the bounds of the expert\u2019s work and helps the tribunal understand the limitations of the report. It is also vital to ensure that the scope of the expert report is within the terms of reference agreed between parties or set by the tribunal.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Factual basis and data sources<\/em>: The expert should identify the facts and evidence they have relied on. If the factual picture is contested or if alternative scenarios are possible, counsel may consider asking the expert to provide different conclusions for the different sets of facts. This may or may not be required in that particular case.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Methodology and underlying assumptions<\/em>: The expert should describe the approaches, techniques or standards applied in reaching the conclusions. The expert needs to explain the assumptions made and the reasons for choosing particular analytical methods. This transparency allows the tribunal (and opposing experts) to assess the validity of the findings. If particular assumptions are relied on, the expert must ensure that these assumptions are clearly defined and, where possible, tied to documents disclosed in the arbitration or the pleadings. The expert should also distinguish between facts (established by evidence), assumptions (matters taken as given but not independently verified) and opinions (professional judgements based on facts and assumptions). This distinction permits proper evaluation of opinion foundations.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Analysis and opinion<\/em>: The expert should present the reasoning leading to the conclusions. Where there are alternative interpretations or methodologies, the expert may choose to explain why the chosen approach is more appropriate or persuasive in the circumstances. Where a range of outcomes is possible, the expert should state it clearly.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Conclusion<\/em>: The expert should summarise the findings. The conclusion should succinctly answer the questions posed in the scope of work set out at the beginning of the report.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Affirmation and signature<\/em>: The IBA Rules expressly require the expert to affirm their genuine belief in the opinions expressed and to include their signature.<a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-9\"><sup>[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Expert witness preparation<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><em>Familiarisation and mock questioning<\/em>: It is permissible for counsel to assist the expert in preparing for direct and cross-examination. This helps the expert navigate the procedural environment required to testify effectively; however, this needs to be balanced against coaching the expert. Counsel should not be putting words into the expert\u2019s mouth; answers should always be in the expert\u2019s own words.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Reviewing opposing evidence<\/em>: A party should work with the expert to thoroughly analyse the opposing expert\u2019s report. The expert is a party\u2019s best resource for identifying flaws in the opposing side\u2019s methodologies, calculations or factual assumptions. An expert may be familiar with the opposing expert and can give counsel tips in cross-examination of the opposing expert.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Demeanour<\/em>: Counsel should advise the expert to remain calm, measured and courteous when giving testimony. The expert should not give in to anger or frustration, nor argue with opposing counsel. An expert who appears defensive or acts like an advocate will lose the tribunal\u2019s trust. Counsel should advise the expert that it may be preferable to concede a point if it is appropriate. To insist otherwise when the answer is obvious may cause the expert to appear partisan.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Prepare the direct presentation<\/em>: Instead of lengthy direct examinations, tribunals may expect experts to present a summary of their key points. Counsel should help the expert identify a small number of significant points to highlight, using clean, effective slides or visual aids. It is also helpful for the tribunal if the expert cross-references a particular slide to the relevant section in the report.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Prepare for hot-tubbing<\/em>: If the tribunal opts for concurrent evidence or hot-tubbing, the expert should be helped to prepare to engage directly and respectfully with their peers. The following section focuses on this particular aspect of expert evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Hot-tubbing<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Hot-tubbing (more formally known as witness conferencing or concurrent expert evidence) is a procedure in which opposing experts from similar disciplines give their testimony simultaneously rather than sequentially. This is conducted at the evidentiary hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Hot-tubbing allows the tribunal to gain a direct understanding of complex or technical issues without the characterisation or artificial framing that can sometimes occur during cross-examination. This can reduce the time spent at the hearing because the tribunal can better follow the issue and hear all the evidence immediately. In contrast, cross-examination may require building up to the point made and refreshing the expert\u2019s or tribunal\u2019s memory on what was said earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">How hot-tubbing is conducted<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>The following points describe how hot-tubbing is sometimes done. It should be noted that the procedures can vary from case to case depending on parties\u2019 agreement or the tribunal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><em>Pre-hearing joint report or meeting<\/em>: Before the hot-tubbing session begins, the tribunal may direct the experts to meet and produce a joint report or to indicate where they agree or disagree on specific issues. A joint report can outline the assumptions, methodologies and conclusions they agree on, as well as the specific areas where they disagree and why. This crystallises the focus of the hot-tubbing subsequently.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>List of issues<\/em>: Following the experts\u2019 meeting or the joint report and prior to the evidentiary hearing, the tribunal may direct parties to submit a list of issues on which the experts may be questioned.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Structure<\/em>: Parties may agree ahead of the evidentiary hearing on,\u00a0<em>inter alia,\u00a0<\/em>the time to be apportioned for each issue, whether the questioning is tribunal-led or counsel-led, whether cross-examination is permitted, and if so, the permitted amount of time. Depending on the agreed structure of the hot-tubbing, there may be direct peer interaction as well. For example, once an expert gives an answer, the opposing expert is given the opportunity to comment on it, agree, disagree or present their counterpoint. Sometimes, the experts are free to ask each other questions directly, engaging in a structured, professional debate. The tribunal may also lead the questioning and referee the discussion, depending on how parties have agreed with the tribunal to conduct the hot-tubbing.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Role of counsel<\/em>: Counsel\u2019s role is usually reserved for the latter part of the session. After the tribunal\u2019s questions and the experts\u2019 discussion, counsel is invited to question the experts on specific topics. Counsel can use this format dynamically \u2013 for instance, by putting a key question to their own expert and immediately using that answer to pin down the opposing expert. Often, hot-tubbing is used in addition to traditional cross-examination rather than replacing it entirely.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Challenges and cautions<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><em>Personality disparities<\/em>: The success of the hot-tubbing can be skewed by the experts\u2019 personalities. A more forceful, extroverted expert might dominate the conversation and overshadow a more knowledgeable but reserved expert who hesitates to insist on having the last word.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Loss of control for counsel<\/em>: Counsel may hesitate to agree to hot-tubbing because the format can sometimes resemble a \u201cfree-for-all\u201d. Counsel lose their traditional control over the narrative and rarely get to ask more than two or three questions in sequence without interruption. Hot-tubbing can be dynamic and counsel should prepare their experts for this.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Requires an active tribunal<\/em>: For hot-tubbing to be effective, the tribunal must be highly prepared, actively engaged and capable of firmly managing the discussion to keep the experts focused. Counsel must be mindful that the party\u2019s expert has the opportunity to speak and is not spoken over by the other expert, especially if the opposing expert has a more forceful personality.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Conclusion<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The landscape of expert evidence in international arbitration continues to evolve. Procedural innovations such as hot-tubbing offer efficiency gains but require careful management. The choice between party-appointed and tribunal-appointed experts remains contested, with each approach presenting distinct advantages and challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Although this chapter has sought to provide practical guidance on the core aspects of presenting expert evidence, counsel should also be aware of other issues that can arise in the arbitral process. Counsel must navigate specific requirements for expert report contents, submission deadlines and disclosure obligations. Questions of privilege arise regularly, particularly concerning communications between counsel and experts. Counsel must also tread carefully when it comes to procedural agreements relating to experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Mastering expert evidence requires more than understanding procedural rules. It demands strategic thinking about when expert evidence is genuinely necessary, how to select credible experts and how to present complex technical matters persuasively. The quality of expert reports, the effectiveness of witness preparation and the ability to navigate cross-examination all significantly influence outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Endnotes<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-1-backlink\"><sup>[1]<\/sup><\/a>&nbsp;International Bar Association, \u201cRules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration\u201d (2020) (IBA Rules), Article 8(4)(f).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-2-backlink\"><sup>[2]<\/sup><\/a>&nbsp;\u201cRules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration\u201d (2018), Article 6.3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-3-backlink\"><sup>[3]<\/sup><\/a>&nbsp;IBA Rules, Guideline 18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-4-backlink\"><sup>[4]<\/sup><\/a>&nbsp;Article 6.1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-5-backlink\"><sup>[5]<\/sup><\/a>&nbsp;Article 6(1). This is also reflected in the arbitration rules of,&nbsp;<em>inter alia<\/em>, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) (Article 29.1); London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) (Article 21.1); Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) (Rule 41.1); Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (Article 25.1). Notably, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission\u2019s \u201cGuidance on Evidence\u201d does not contain a requirement that parties must be consulted \u2013 Article 9.2 expressly states that the tribunal \u201cmay appoint one or more experts on its own initiative\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-6-backlink\"><sup>[6]<\/sup><\/a>&nbsp;See IBA Rules, Articles 5(2) and 6(4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-7-backlink\"><sup>[7]<\/sup><\/a>&nbsp;Articles 5.2(a) and 6.4(a).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-8-backlink\"><sup>[8]<\/sup><\/a>&nbsp;Article 5.2, items (a) and (c) and Article 6.2; see also UNCITRAL Rules, Article 29(2); LCIA, Rule 21.2; SIAC, Rule 41 for tribunal-appointed experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/globalarbitrationreview.com\/guide\/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration\/3rd-edition\/article\/methods-presenting-expert-evidence#footnote-9-backlink\"><sup>[9]<\/sup><\/a>&nbsp;IBA Rules, Article 5.2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes &#8211; please call Advise &amp; Consult, Inc. at 801.641.8304, or email <a href=\"mailto:experts@adviseandconsult.net\">experts@adviseandconsult.net<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chi Liu and Cheryl Ng Huiling | Global Arbitration Review Introduction Expert evidence plays an indispensable role in modern international arbitration. As commercial disputes become increasingly complex and technical, arbitral tribunals regularly confront issues requiring specialised knowledge beyond their expertise. Whether addressing questions of quantum valuation, construction engineering, intellectual property, financial accounting or specialised industry&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Methods for\u00a0Presenting\u00a0Expert Evidence<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[41,7],"tags":[9895,42,17],"class_list":["post-906105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arbitration","category-expert-witness","tag-advise-consult","tag-arbitration-2","tag-expert-witness-2","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v25.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Methods for\u00a0Presenting\u00a0Expert Evidence - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"quality of expert evidence, witness preparation and the ability to navigate cross-examination all significantly influence outcomes\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Methods for\u00a0Presenting\u00a0Expert Evidence - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"quality of expert evidence, witness preparation and the ability to navigate cross-examination all significantly influence outcomes\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-10T21:34:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-09-10T21:34:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Methods for\u00a0Presenting\u00a0Expert Evidence\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-10T21:34:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-10T21:34:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/\"},\"wordCount\":3863,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise &amp; Consult\",\"arbitration\",\"expert witness\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Arbitration\",\"Expert Witness\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/\",\"name\":\"Methods for\u00a0Presenting\u00a0Expert Evidence - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-10T21:34:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-10T21:34:15+00:00\",\"description\":\"quality of expert evidence, witness preparation and the ability to navigate cross-examination all significantly influence outcomes\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Methods for\u00a0Presenting\u00a0Expert Evidence - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","description":"quality of expert evidence, witness preparation and the ability to navigate cross-examination all significantly influence outcomes","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Methods for\u00a0Presenting\u00a0Expert Evidence - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","og_description":"quality of expert evidence, witness preparation and the ability to navigate cross-examination all significantly influence outcomes","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/","og_site_name":"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2026-09-10T21:34:10+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-09-10T21:34:15+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Methods for\u00a0Presenting\u00a0Expert Evidence","datePublished":"2026-09-10T21:34:10+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-10T21:34:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/"},"wordCount":3863,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise &amp; Consult","arbitration","expert witness"],"articleSection":["Arbitration","Expert Witness"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/","name":"Methods for\u00a0Presenting\u00a0Expert Evidence - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-09-10T21:34:10+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-10T21:34:15+00:00","description":"quality of expert evidence, witness preparation and the ability to navigate cross-examination all significantly influence outcomes","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/expert-evidence-methods-for-presenting\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3NIB","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/906105","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=906105"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/906105\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":906106,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/906105\/revisions\/906106"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=906105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=906105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=906105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}