There are 3 steps in the case solving process which should be followed. If one of the fail, involved parties should move on to the next step:
LC – LC solution
MC – MC solution
XQB case review and decision
LC – LC solution
If both parties would be aware about IXPQS, most probably majority of the cases would be solved during this period. This case solving part is completely on the involved Local Committees and in majority of the cases we even don’t know about that.
XQB role: if some party involved asked us for support we might be giving guidance or recommendation, however we should stay as much neutral as we can and we see something is going wrong recommend next step.
MC-MC solution
If the LCs fail to find an agreement within 2 weeks, MCs should get involved. The process is the same, they should be following IXPQS.
XQB role: same as by LC-LC solution.
XQB case review and decision
The official material to start the case review is official CASE SOLVING FORMAT. To the case solving format should be attached proofs (emails, scanned documents, outputs of meetings, etc.) which can prove that the facts mentioned in the case solving format are correct. This is sent to XQB by claming party and XQB forward it to claimed country. Claimed country has 7 days to submit a counter claim. Counter claim means filled Case solving format with put their country opinion about the case and relevant proofs.
Group of 3 members in XQB make a review of all documents received (country coaches and XQB chair). This group is trying to understand the case and “build up a story” how the whole situation went. If there is anything not clear they will request the countries to submit other specific documents, of proofs which can clarify the situation. This process might go in more rounds, if the new proofs still let open questions.
Once everything is clarified, XQB make a decision about:
Compensations which one country has to pay to another, or the intern (and can make specific cost sharing among the bodies in the country based on the part they are taking on the quality problem. For example: intern has to be compensated 100% of his flight costs. 60% of compensation has to come from receiving LC, 20% receiving MC and 20% sending MC, because...)
Development steps to countries which need to happen in order not to repeat quality problems again.
Decision review procedure
If one or both of the countries involved are not completely satisfied with the decision, they might ask for second review. This review is done by group of other 3 XQB members (2 other members and XQB chair) and is done based on proofs delivered by the original complain. Other proofs are usually allowed only in case something new jumps out and the fact was not known before.If also after this review countries are not satisfied with the decision they have right to request AI review, which result is definitive. In case there is quality complain against AI, third review is run by XQB.