Arbitrators have the freedom to optimize party control of the decision-making process. Yet, arbitrators act like judges who hear all evidence and then render a full decision.
While judges are imposed on everyone in a society (and must therefore offer every opportunity for advocacy before making a decision), arbitrators can structure their decision-making process to maximize party input.
What if arbitrators used their decision-making power to guide the negotiation between the parties? After hearing arguments and evidence, the arbitrator could deny aspects of each side's case and then allow the parties further opportunity to negotiate.
Research indicates parties do not like losing control of the decision-making process. They may therefore prefer to know the arbitrator's leanings and then work out the details themselves.
based on this guidance
as per usual