If we got it wrong, there has to be a way to say so.
The Ombuds route is how a vendor or an enterprise contests something the Forum has published about them. It is heard by someone who did not make the original determination, it runs to a published timetable, and the outcome is printed whichever way it goes. A register that cannot be appealed is a register that will eventually be wrong in public and stay wrong.
An appeal route, not a complaints inbox
We publish determinations about named companies. Sometimes we will get one wrong, and the people best placed to know that are the ones we got wrong. This is the formal way to tell us, and the way we are obliged to answer.
What the Ombuds can do
- Review whether the published method was actually followed in your case
- Review whether the evidence on the record supports the determination printed
- Order a determination corrected, re-opened, re-examined or withdrawn
- Order a correction notice published alongside the original, carrying its own date
- Find that the Forum's conduct fell below its own published standard, and say so
- Recommend a change to the method itself where your case exposed a flaw in it
What the Ombuds cannot do
- Change a determination because you dislike it, absent an error of method or evidence
- Reveal which enterprise said what. Respondent anonymity is absolute and is not appealable
- Award money, costs or damages of any kind
- Move your position on the Enterprise AI 100, which is editorial rather than evidential
- Hear a matter about commercial terms, pricing or a refund
- Act as a route to re-argue a determination that a previous Ombuds matter already settled
Four steps, thirty working days
Every stage has a deadline on us as well as on you. If we miss ours, the matter escalates automatically rather than quietly sitting.
You raise it
Write to the Ombuds address naming the determination, the ground you are relying on and what you say the correct position is.
We acknowledge
You get a reference, confirmation of whether it is admissible, and the name of whoever will hear it. They will not be whoever made the original call.
It is examined
The full log is re-read against the method. We may come back to you, and we may go back to the organization that answered originally.
A finding, published
A written outcome to you, and a public note on the record saying a matter was raised and how it resolved, including when it resolved against you.
How this actually works
The full terms of the route. Read the grounds in section three before you write, because a matter that does not rely on one of them will be returned rather than heard.
Who may raise a matter
Any company named in a determination the Forum has published, and any organization whose answer formed part of one. You do not need to be a customer of ours, you do not need to be indexed, and it makes no difference whether you have ever paid us anything. A company that has never spoken to us has exactly the same access to this route as one that commissioned a review last week.
A third party who believes a published determination is factually wrong may also write to us, and we will look at it, but they do not get the formal timetable set out below. That is reserved for the parties the record is actually about.
What may be contested
Any individual determination in the register, any category or industry view built on top of determinations, and any published statement of fact about a named company in a Forum edition. The Enterprise AI 100 is contestable only on matters of fact, such as a wrong headquarters, founding year or capital position. Your ranking on it is an editorial judgement and is explicitly outside this route.
The grounds
A matter must rely on at least one of the following four grounds, and should say which. Matters that rely on none of them will be returned with an explanation rather than heard.
Ground A: the method was not followed
The published method sets out how a claim is captured, how an enterprise is approached and how an answer is recorded. If a step was skipped, taken out of order or applied differently to you than to others in the same category, that is a ground.
Ground B: the evidence does not support the determination
The record exists but the conclusion drawn from it is not available on the evidence logged. This is the most common successful ground and it is the one worth being specific about.
Ground C: material evidence was not considered
Evidence that existed at the time of the determination, was reasonably available to us, and would have changed the outcome. Evidence that came into existence afterwards is handled as a re-examination rather than an appeal, and that is free too.
Ground D: a conflict or a failure of independence
That the determination was affected by who commissioned it, by a commercial relationship, or by any other interest. This ground is heard by the founder personally and the outcome is published in full regardless of what it finds.
Who hears it
A matter is heard by a person who took no part in the original determination. Where the Forum is too small for that to be possible internally, it is referred to an external reviewer with no commercial relationship to either party, and we will tell you that is what has happened and who they are before they begin.
On the obvious objection. We are a small organization reviewing itself, and an internal reviewer is not the same as an independent tribunal. We know that. The protections we can actually offer are these: the reviewer is never the original author, Ground D always escalates to the founder, every outcome is published including the ones against us, and the annual report in section eleven prints how many matters were raised and how many we lost. Judge the route on that record rather than on this paragraph.
How to raise one
Write to ombuds@gaiforum.com. There is no form, no fee and no portal. Include the following, because a matter missing them cannot start the clock:
- The determination reference or the URL of the record you are contesting
- Which of the four grounds you are relying on
- What you say the correct position is, stated plainly
- Any evidence you want considered, attached rather than described
- A named person at your organization we can correspond with
You may be represented by anyone you choose, including counsel, and it will not change how the matter is heard or how quickly.
Timetable and what happens if we miss it
Acknowledgement within five working days, examination complete within twenty, written finding within thirty. Working days are counted in the location of the office handling the matter and we will tell you which that is.
If we miss the thirty-day deadline, the contested determination is suspended from public view until the finding issues, and the suspension itself is noted on the record. We would rather carry that cost than let a matter drift.
We may extend once, by fifteen working days, only where the matter requires us to go back to the organization that originally answered and they have not yet replied. We will tell you we are extending and why.
Possible outcomes
- Upheld. The determination is corrected, re-opened or withdrawn, and a correction notice publishes alongside the original.
- Partly upheld. Some element is corrected and the rest stands. The finding says which, and why.
- Not upheld. The determination stands unchanged, with written reasons that address the ground you relied on rather than restating the original conclusion.
- Method referral. Your matter exposed a flaw in the method itself. The determination is handled on its own merits and the method goes to review, with your case cited.
Where an outcome is upheld, every other determination that may have been affected by the same error is re-examined on our own initiative, without anyone having to ask.
Publication of the outcome
Every concluded matter produces a public note on the record carrying the date, the ground relied on, and the outcome. The note stays attached permanently, including where the matter was not upheld, because a record that shows only successful challenges is as misleading as one that shows none.
We will not publish your correspondence, your evidence, or any commercial detail that came up along the way. If you would prefer the note to name you as the party who raised it, say so and we will. By default it does not.
Anonymity, and why it is absolute
This is the one thing the Ombuds cannot touch. The identity of an enterprise that answered the Forum is never disclosed, to anyone, under any ground, at any stage of a matter, including to a party who is certain they already know.
Enterprises answer us because that protection is unconditional. The moment it becomes negotiable, they stop answering, the register stops being able to verify anything, and there is nothing left for anyone to appeal. A reviewer will read the full correspondence, including the identity, when deciding a matter. You will not, and neither will anyone else outside the Forum.
What you can see is everything else: the questions asked, the date, the stage recorded and the reasoning applied.
Finality and repeat matters
A finding concludes the matter. The same determination cannot be re-contested on the same ground, though it can be contested on a different ground, and it can always be re-examined when genuinely new evidence appears. Re-examination on new evidence is free, is not limited in number, and does not require a ground at all.
Determinations lapse to unconfirmed twelve months after they were answered, so in many cases waiting is a faster route to a changed record than arguing is.
Reporting and review
Once a year we publish how many matters were raised, how they split across the four grounds, how many were upheld in whole or in part, and how long they took against the timetable above. That report publishes whether or not it flatters us, and it is the main evidence you have that this route is real rather than decorative.
This document is version 1.0, in force from 19 October 2026. Material changes will be published with a version number and a date, and a matter already underway is heard under the version in force when it was raised.
Tell us what we got wrong
Write directly to the Ombuds address with the determination reference, the ground you are relying on and what you say the correct position is. There is no form, no fee and no portal, and the clock starts the day it arrives.
The method is published so it can be argued with
Before raising a matter, it is worth reading how a claim is examined. Most questions about a determination are answered there.