Published: 17 September 2026

TL;DR: When a dispute arises over an agent-negotiated deal, the DealSheet is the reference point. The marketplace provides deal record retrieval; both parties compare their delivery data against the agreed DealSheet terms. The neutral marketplace holds the record and provides access; it does not adjudicate. This piece explains what the resolution process looks like and what both parties need to have in place.

Disputes in programmatic advertising are common. Delivery shortfalls, inventory discrepancies, and CPM disagreements arise on most campaigns of any significant scale. In conventional programmatic, the absence of a shared pre-delivery record makes these disputes difficult to resolve. Both parties present their platform logs and negotiate a settlement that reflects the balance of power rather than the facts.

Agentic advertising changes the dispute resolution dynamic. The DealSheet, written at negotiation time and held by both parties, is the document both sides can point to. This piece explains how disputes are resolved in an agentic marketplace and what the process requires from each party.

Common Dispute Scenarios

Three types of dispute arise most frequently in agent-negotiated deals.

Delivery shortfall is the first. The buyer's agent negotiated a delivery commitment of a specific volume of impressions over a defined period. Delivery came in below that figure. The buyer claims a shortfall; the publisher's data shows a different number. The dispute is about what was committed and what was delivered.

Out-of-scope inventory is the second. The agreed inventory scope covered specific publisher properties or contextual categories. Delivery included inventory outside that scope. The buyer has paid for inventory that does not match what was agreed. The dispute is about what the agreed scope was and whether the delivery matched it.

CPM discrepancy is the third. The agreed CPM is challenged after delivery. The buyer claims they were billed at a different rate than agreed; the publisher claims the billing reflects the agreed terms. The dispute is about the agreed price.

The DealSheet as the Reference Point

In all three scenarios, the DealSheet is the document both parties consult first. The DealSheet records the delivery commitment, the inventory scope, and the agreed CPM. It was written before delivery began. It was held by both parties from the moment of agreement.

The resolution process begins with both parties retrieving their DealSheet. The buy-side agent retrieves the buyer's copy. The sell-side agent retrieves the publisher's copy. If both copies match (which they should, since they were written by the marketplace at the same moment), the agreed terms are established without dispute.

The second step is comparing delivery data against the DealSheet. The buyer's delivery data comes from the buy-side agent's own systems. The publisher's delivery data comes from the sell-side agent's records. Both parties compare their delivery data against the agreed terms in the DealSheet.

If the delivery data shows a shortfall, both parties can see it against a shared reference. If the delivery data shows inventory outside the agreed scope, the scope is there in the DealSheet to compare against. If the CPM charged differs from the DealSheet CPM, the discrepancy is identifiable immediately.

The Marketplace's Role in Resolution

The neutral marketplace's role is specific and limited. Alkimi holds the deal record, provides retrieval access to both parties, and takes no side in the dispute.

The marketplace does not adjudicate. It does not determine which party is correct. It provides the record and makes it equally accessible to both sides. This is the appropriate role for a neutral infrastructure provider. A marketplace that adjudicates disputes is making commercial judgements that may reflect its own interests, not the facts of the case.

What the marketplace does provide is retrieval confidence. Both parties know that the DealSheet they retrieve from Alkimi is the same document that was written at the moment of agreement. The marketplace's neutrality and the bilateral custody model mean neither party can have altered the record in the interim.

What Both Parties Need to Have in Place

For the dispute resolution process to work, both parties need operational readiness.

Buy-side readiness requires that the buyer's systems retain a copy of the DealSheet from the time of agreement, maintain delivery data in a format that can be compared against DealSheet terms, and have a process for retrieving marketplace records and comparing them against their own copy.

Sell-side readiness requires the same on the publisher side: retained DealSheet copies, delivery data in a comparable format, and a retrieval process.

The most common readiness gap is on the delivery data side. Buyers and publishers who have DealSheets but cannot produce clean delivery data in a format comparable to DealSheet terms will find the comparison difficult. Investing in clean delivery data infrastructure before deploying agents is the preparation step that most directly reduces dispute friction.

Disputes will still arise in agentic advertising. What changes is the quality of evidence available to resolve them. The DealSheet replaces post-campaign reconstruction with a pre-delivery record both parties agreed and hold. That change does not eliminate disputes; it makes them factual rather than political.