Conflict-resolution jurisdiction is NWG’s answer to polycentric deadlock — the case where two institutions hold genuinely legitimate but competing jurisdictions, both act reasonably, and the participant is left unhelped in the gap between them. Distributed authority cannot resolve this on its own, so the framework predefines how collisions are broken: a rule for which concern temporarily takes precedence, applied by a bounded forum whose only job is the conflict, not the person. The candidate ordering puts immediate irreversible harm first, then basic standing, then existing rights, then ordinary administrative interest — enough to let the system act without creating a permanent authority over anyone. See deciding without a final authority.
Conflict-resolution jurisdiction
A predetermined rule for deciding which concern temporarily dominates when two legitimate jurisdictions collide — not a permanent sovereign but a bounded forum for the conflict itself. A candidate priority runs immediate irreversible harm first, then basic standing, then existing rights, then ordinary administrative interest.