A Practical Guide to Neutral ADAS Co-Mediation in Collision Repair

A late-model SUV comes back three days after delivery. The customer is upset: “The lane keep (lane keep assist, which helps keep the vehicle centered in its lane) is fighting me, and the forward collision warning (system that alerts drivers to potential frontal crashes) is acting weird.” The shop is confident the repair was performed properly. The carrier questions the radar calibration line item. The dealer says they will need to diagnose it and can’t guarantee what they’ll find. Within 48 hours, the conversation shifts from solving a problem to assigning fault.

If that feels familiar, you are not alone. ADAS-related disputes are becoming a regular pressure point in collision repair because they sit at the intersection of safety, liability, documentation, and trust. And unlike a blend or fitment disagreement, ADAS concerns cannot always be “seen,” which makes them easier to doubt and harder to resolve.

A practical upgrade, already used in other high-stakes environments, is ADAS co-mediation, which pairs a neutral mediator with a neutral technical specialist. Done well, this model converts disagreements into solutions backed by documentation, turning stalemates into effective, safety-focused problem-solving.

The key phrase is done well. In mediation, it is not only actual impartiality that matters, but it is also the appearance of impartiality. If a technical specialist looks “teamed up” with the mediator or one side, a party may claim bias even when none exists. The good news is that risk can be managed with clear design choices.

Why ADAS Disputes Escalate So Quickly

Most ADAS conflicts are two disputes layered together:

• The human dispute: fear, frustration, pride, time, money, reputation, and “who’s ”
• The technical dispute: what procedures apply, what scan data does (and does not) prove, what calibration conditions were present, and what documentation is missing.

Traditional mediation addresses the human side extremely well, restoring communication, lowering defensiveness, and identifying interests. But ADAS disputes often stall because technical uncertainty remains high. When parties cannot align on what’s known, what’s unknown, and what would confirm next steps, positions harden. In that environment, normal disagreement can be misread as intent when the real driver is ambiguity.

The Co-Mediation Model: Neutral + Tech

ADAS co-mediation separates two jobs that are often forced into one:

• The neutral (mediator) runs the process: establishes ground rules, ensures each voice is heard, manages emotion and power imbalances, and guides the parties toward a voluntary agreement.
• The technical specialist runs the translation: explains scans (diagnostic checks for system health), DTCs (diagnostic trouble codes, error codes from vehicle systems), calibration reports (documents confirming sensors are properly aligned), alignment printouts (documentation of wheel or sensor alignment), photos, and procedure triggers (events or requirements that necessitate ADAS procedures) in plain language, then identifies the smallest steps to reduce uncertainty.

This is not “bringing in an expert witness” to win an argument. The goal is not a courtroom-style determination. The goal is shared understanding and a verification pathway that protects safety, relationships, and time.

Where the “Bias” Argument Comes From

A biased claim is more likely to stick (at least as a perception problem) when any of the following are true:

• The technical specialist is the mediator’s preferred vendor, has prior relationships with one side, or has undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• The technical specialist is framed as “the mediator’s expert” who will decide what is required, shifting the process into an adjudication vibe.
• The technical specialist has private conversations with one side (or with the mediator) about substantive technical issues without clear permission or boundaries.
• The technical specialist physically sits with one side’s team or interacts primarily with one side, even unintentionally.

None of that means co-mediation is flawed. It means that optics and access must be intentionally designed.

How to Inoculate the Process Against the Appearance of Bias

If you want co-mediation to be defensible and comfortable for carriers, shops, and vehicle owners, build in these safeguards:

1. Joint selection + joint retention

All parties should mutually agree on the technical specialist, designating them as a neutral resource for mediation. Document this agreement.

2. Conflict checks + disclosures

Run conflict checks for both the mediator and the technical specialist. Disclose any past relationships or interests that could reasonably raise questions, even if you believe they will not affect neutrality.

3. Define the tech’s lane: translator, not decider

Clearly state that the technical specialist clarifies and educates, identifies missing information, and helps design a verification plan, not to determine fault or issue binding conclusions (unless all parties choose otherwise).

4. Equal-access rule

Whatever substantive technical input is shared, it must be shared with everyone. If caucuses occur, set a clear rule: no new technical information is provided to only one side. Any technical points raised in caucus are summarized for all parties to ensure decision-making is informed and fair.

5. Neutral seating and optics

Seat the technical specialist with the neutral team or at a separate neutral position, never at a party’s table. Small optics choices prevent big misunderstandings.

6. Payment structure that does not create leverage

Avoid one-sided payment when possible. Split fees or allocate costs in a mutually agreed way that does not suggest influence.

What an ADAS Co-Mediation Session Looks Like (With the Safeguards in Place)

A repeatable workflow tends to include:

1) Targeted intake and triage

The mediator screens for fit: documentation/cost disagreement, drivability concern, comeback, customer confidence issue, parts/procedure compliance question, or something drifting toward product defect territory. The technical specialist flags whether the record is sufficient or whether additional diagnostics are needed for a meaningful discussion.

2) A one-page “facts map”

Loss → repair operations → pre-scan → repair steps → post-scan → calibrations → symptoms → follow-up observations. A simple timeline eliminates the “everyone watched a different movie” dynamic.

3) Evidence review that stays practical

Focus on: relevant procedure triggers (events or requirements that call for specific ADAS work), scan status (current/history/pending, indicates if issues are present now or recorded in the past), calibration prerequisites/conditions (requirements that must be met for sensor calibration), and documentation gaps (missing records), and the most efficient way to close them.

4) Option-building with decision gates

Define a verification pathway: a documented recheck, a diagnostic plan with a cap and decision points, third-party verification with a defined scope, and clear deliverables.

5) Put it in writing like a mini scope of work

Who does what, by when, what documentation will be produced, and what “complete and verified” means.

Agreement Language You Can Use

“Parties agree to use a neutral technical specialist to assist with the explanation of ADAS-related documentation and development of a mutually acceptable verification plan. The technical specialist will not advocate for any party or issue in fault determinations. Any substantive technical input will be shared with all parties.”

Bottom Line

ADAS disputes are not going away. The question is whether the industry will keep treating ambiguity as a battleground or adopt a more modern approach. Co-mediation works when the technical specialist is mutually selected, conflict-checked, and clearly defined by agreed-upon rules. Pair a neutral with a neutral tech, manage optics, and many disputes become solvable.

Note: This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or address any specific dispute.