Which of the following best describes an arbitrated outcome?

An arbitrated outcome is characterized by an independent arbitrator making a binding decision. This process typically involves two or more parties who have a dispute and decide to submit their case to an arbitrator rather than going through traditional litigation. The arbitrator, who is usually a skilled professional in the relevant field, hears both sides of the argument and then renders a decision that is legally binding for all parties involved. This nature of decision-making is one of the key distinctions of arbitration, as it offers a conclusive resolution to the dispute, contrasting with other methods where the outcome may not be binding.

In contrast, negotiation, mutual concessions, and mediation do not result in binding decisions. In negotiations, parties may work toward finding a settlement themselves, while mutual concessions involve parties making compromises without an external authority imposing a resolution. Mediation involves a neutral party facilitating discussions to reach an agreement, but again, the mediator does not have the power to make binding decisions, as an arbitrator does. These differences highlight why the role of an independent arbitrator in reaching a binding decision aptly describes the concept of an arbitrated outcome.