Post-auction arbitration flow
Designed for the moment things go wrong
When buyers found a discrepancy between a vehicle's condition and its listing, the only way to report it was an open-ended free-text box — no structure, no consistency, and no fast path to resolution. I redesigned this post-auction dispute flow to replace free text with structured condition-report categories.
COMPANY
ACV Auctions
ROLE
Lead Designer
scope
UX/UI, Research
TEAM
Me, 1 PM, 3 Devs, 1 Data
YEAR
2023 Q2
A process built on frustration
When a dealer wins a vehicle at auction, they're buying based on the condition disclosure — the report documenting the vehicle's state before the sale. Sometimes what arrives doesn't match what was disclosed. When that happens, dealers file an arbitration case to flag the discrepancy and start a resolution process with ACV's internal arbitration team.
When I took this on, arbitration lived inside the won-vehicle detail page as a "Report an Issue" flow that opened into an empty text box. Dealers typed a description, or called ACV's arbitration line directly. Either way, the internal team picked it up manually — reading submissions in Salesforce, following up by phone or email to move things forward.
My Role
I led end-to-end user experience design and research on this project — from sitting inside the arbitration team's day-to-day to shipping two full design iterations.
Sitting with the arbitration team, and the dealers on the other end
I spent time observing the arbitration team directly — listening in on live calls, watching how they triaged and resolved cases from first contact to close — and talked with dealers themselves about where the process broke down for them.
Structuring the report
I redesigned the reporting flow around the same category structure used in the condition report itself, replacing free-form text with something precise and comparable.
Bringing evidence forward
I added the ability to attach photos and documents at the point of submission, so evidence started the case instead of arriving three follow-ups later.
The Challenge
How might we help dealers report issues clearly and calmly, while giving the arbitration team what they need to resolve cases fast?
The existing flow was breaking down in three specific ways. Dealers arrived already frustrated — discovering a problem with a vehicle they'd already paid for — and the open text box gave that frustration nowhere to go but into the submission itself: cases written in all caps, or dealers skipping the form to call in upset. Because issues were described in free text, there was no direct link between what a dealer reported and what the condition report actually said — the arbitration team had to manually cross-check section by section before a case could even begin moving. And without a way to attach evidence upfront, cases turned into a slow back-and-forth of requesting photos and documents, one round-trip at a time. For dealers whose business runs on turning inventory quickly, every delay cost real time, money, and trust in the condition report system itself.
Discovery
Before redesigning anything, I wanted to see the problem from both sides. I sat with the arbitration team as they worked, and talked directly with dealers about where the process broke down for them.
This was also the first time the team had a documented user workflow for arbitration — I mapped out the end-to-end process and shared it with the wider team, using it to pinpoint exactly where things were breaking down based on what I'd seen in interviews and shadow sessions. It became a shared reference point: instead of everyone holding a different mental model of "where arbitration goes wrong," the team could see it laid out in one place.
Two things became clear from this: dealers needed a way to point at exactly what was wrong without having to argue their way into being heard, and the arbitration team needed structured, comparable information from the very first submission — not three emails in.
Design
The first redesign replaced the open text box with the same category structure used in the condition report — dealers selected the specific section and category where the issue was found, instead of describing it in prose. This made every submission instantly comparable against the original disclosure, and removed the emotional friction of having to write your way into being taken seriously. Alongside it, I added the ability to attach photos and documents directly at submission, turning evidence into a starting input instead of something requested after the fact.
I shared the design with dealers and the internal arbitration team before building — response was positive on both sides. We ran an A/B test to confirm the impact, then moved to full launch. Case resolution moved faster, with less friction on both ends of the process.
Round two: aligning to the new design system
The first update solved the reporting problem but surfaced a new one — it had been built in ACV's legacy design system, while the main auction screens around it had already moved to the new one. The flow itself compounded the inconsistency: arbitration opened as a modal over the vehicle detail page, and submitting a report opened a second modal on top of that, each with its own overlay — a stacked, cluttered structure for a task that didn't need to feel that complex.
I redesigned the flow around a sidebar pattern already established elsewhere in the auction experience, replacing the modal-on-modal structure with a single consistent panel and migrating it to the new design system. The underlying flow — category selection, attachments — stayed the same; what changed was giving it a container that felt native to the rest of the product. Design was handed off in full; release outcomes for this round are pending.
Outcome
After launching the structured reporting flow and running an A/B test against the original free-text experience, case resolution moved faster with less back-and-forth — dealers submitted clearer, more actionable reports from the start, and the arbitration team spent less time chasing missing context.
Case resolution time reduction
Reduction in back-and-forth follow-ups
Lift in resolution rate (A/B test)
Summary
This was the first project where I sat inside a team's day-to-day before designing anything - watching dealers and the arbitration team, listening to where the friction actually lived rather than assuming it. That's where the real insight came from. It reinforced something I keep coming back to: the strongest part of this work isn't the interface, it's the conversation and observation that happens before it - understanding people well enough to design something that works for the business and for them at the same time.
Let's talk — I'm always up for a good conversation.
Get in touch
shinpark.to@gmail.com
© 2025 Shin Park. Built with precision.
Post-auction arbitration flow
Designed for the moment things go wrong
When buyers found a discrepancy between a vehicle's condition and its listing, the only way to report it was an open-ended free-text box — no structure, no consistency, and no fast path to resolution. I redesigned this post-auction dispute flow to replace free text with structured condition-report categories.
COMPANY
ACV Auctions
ROLE
Lead Designer
scope
UX/UI, Research
TEAM
Me, 1 PM, 3 Devs, 1 Data
YEAR
2023 Q2
A process built on frustration
When a dealer wins a vehicle at auction, they're buying based on the condition disclosure — the report documenting the vehicle's state before the sale. Sometimes what arrives doesn't match what was disclosed. When that happens, dealers file an arbitration case to flag the discrepancy and start a resolution process with ACV's internal arbitration team.
When I took this on, arbitration lived inside the won-vehicle detail page as a "Report an Issue" flow that opened into an empty text box. Dealers typed a description, or called ACV's arbitration line directly. Either way, the internal team picked it up manually — reading submissions in Salesforce, following up by phone or email to move things forward.
My Role
I led end-to-end user experience design and research on this project — from sitting inside the arbitration team's day-to-day to shipping two full design iterations.
Sitting with the arbitration team, and the dealers on the other end
I spent time observing the arbitration team directly — listening in on live calls, watching how they triaged and resolved cases from first contact to close — and talked with dealers themselves about where the process broke down for them.
Structuring the report
I redesigned the reporting flow around the same category structure used in the condition report itself, replacing free-form text with something precise and comparable.
Bringing evidence forward
I added the ability to attach photos and documents at the point of submission, so evidence started the case instead of arriving three follow-ups later.
The Challenge
How might we help dealers report issues clearly and calmly, while giving the arbitration team what they need to resolve cases fast?
The existing flow was breaking down in three specific ways. Dealers arrived already frustrated — discovering a problem with a vehicle they'd already paid for — and the open text box gave that frustration nowhere to go but into the submission itself: cases written in all caps, or dealers skipping the form to call in upset. Because issues were described in free text, there was no direct link between what a dealer reported and what the condition report actually said — the arbitration team had to manually cross-check section by section before a case could even begin moving. And without a way to attach evidence upfront, cases turned into a slow back-and-forth of requesting photos and documents, one round-trip at a time. For dealers whose business runs on turning inventory quickly, every delay cost real time, money, and trust in the condition report system itself.
Discovery
Before redesigning anything, I wanted to see the problem from both sides. I sat with the arbitration team as they worked, and talked directly with dealers about where the process broke down for them.
This was also the first time the team had a documented user workflow for arbitration — I mapped out the end-to-end process and shared it with the wider team, using it to pinpoint exactly where things were breaking down based on what I'd seen in interviews and shadow sessions. It became a shared reference point: instead of everyone holding a different mental model of "where arbitration goes wrong," the team could see it laid out in one place.
Two things became clear from this: dealers needed a way to point at exactly what was wrong without having to argue their way into being heard, and the arbitration team needed structured, comparable information from the very first submission — not three emails in.
Design
The first redesign replaced the open text box with the same category structure used in the condition report — dealers selected the specific section and category where the issue was found, instead of describing it in prose. This made every submission instantly comparable against the original disclosure, and removed the emotional friction of having to write your way into being taken seriously. Alongside it, I added the ability to attach photos and documents directly at submission, turning evidence into a starting input instead of something requested after the fact.
I shared the design with dealers and the internal arbitration team before building — response was positive on both sides. We ran an A/B test to confirm the impact, then moved to full launch. Case resolution moved faster, with less friction on both ends of the process.
Round two: aligning to the new design system
The first update solved the reporting problem but surfaced a new one — it had been built in ACV's legacy design system, while the main auction screens around it had already moved to the new one. The flow itself compounded the inconsistency: arbitration opened as a modal over the vehicle detail page, and submitting a report opened a second modal on top of that, each with its own overlay — a stacked, cluttered structure for a task that didn't need to feel that complex.
I redesigned the flow around a sidebar pattern already established elsewhere in the auction experience, replacing the modal-on-modal structure with a single consistent panel and migrating it to the new design system. The underlying flow — category selection, attachments — stayed the same; what changed was giving it a container that felt native to the rest of the product. Design was handed off in full; release outcomes for this round are pending.
Outcome
After launching the structured reporting flow and running an A/B test against the original free-text experience, case resolution moved faster with less back-and-forth — dealers submitted clearer, more actionable reports from the start, and the arbitration team spent less time chasing missing context.
Case resolution time reduction
Reduction in back-and-forth follow-ups
Lift in resolution rate (A/B test)
Summary
This was the first project where I sat inside a team's day-to-day before designing anything - watching dealers and the arbitration team, listening to where the friction actually lived rather than assuming it. That's where the real insight came from. It reinforced something I keep coming back to: the strongest part of this work isn't the interface, it's the conversation and observation that happens before it - understanding people well enough to design something that works for the business and for them at the same time.
Let's talk — I'm always up for a good conversation.
Get in touch
shinpark.to@gmail.com
© 2025 Shin Park. Built with precision.
Post-auction arbitration flow
Designed for the moment things go wrong
When buyers found a discrepancy between a vehicle's condition and its listing, the only way to report it was an open-ended free-text box — no structure, no consistency, and no fast path to resolution. I redesigned this post-auction dispute flow to replace free text with structured condition-report categories.
COMPANY
ACV Auctions
ROLE
Lead Designer
scope
UX/UI, Research
TEAM
Me, 1 PM, 3 Devs, 1 Data
YEAR
2023 Q2
A process built on frustration
When a dealer wins a vehicle at auction, they're buying based on the condition disclosure — the report documenting the vehicle's state before the sale. Sometimes what arrives doesn't match what was disclosed. When that happens, dealers file an arbitration case to flag the discrepancy and start a resolution process with ACV's internal arbitration team.
When I took this on, arbitration lived inside the won-vehicle detail page as a "Report an Issue" flow that opened into an empty text box. Dealers typed a description, or called ACV's arbitration line directly. Either way, the internal team picked it up manually — reading submissions in Salesforce, following up by phone or email to move things forward.
My Role
I led end-to-end user experience design and research on this project — from sitting inside the arbitration team's day-to-day to shipping two full design iterations.
Sitting with the arbitration team, and the dealers on the other end
I spent time observing the arbitration team directly — listening in on live calls, watching how they triaged and resolved cases from first contact to close — and talked with dealers themselves about where the process broke down for them.
Structuring the report
I redesigned the reporting flow around the same category structure used in the condition report itself, replacing free-form text with something precise and comparable.
Bringing evidence forward
I added the ability to attach photos and documents at the point of submission, so evidence started the case instead of arriving three follow-ups later.
The Challenge
How might we help dealers report issues clearly and calmly, while giving the arbitration team what they need to resolve cases fast?
The existing flow was breaking down in three specific ways. Dealers arrived already frustrated — discovering a problem with a vehicle they'd already paid for — and the open text box gave that frustration nowhere to go but into the submission itself: cases written in all caps, or dealers skipping the form to call in upset. Because issues were described in free text, there was no direct link between what a dealer reported and what the condition report actually said — the arbitration team had to manually cross-check section by section before a case could even begin moving. And without a way to attach evidence upfront, cases turned into a slow back-and-forth of requesting photos and documents, one round-trip at a time. For dealers whose business runs on turning inventory quickly, every delay cost real time, money, and trust in the condition report system itself.
Discovery
Before redesigning anything, I wanted to see the problem from both sides. I sat with the arbitration team as they worked, and talked directly with dealers about where the process broke down for them.
This was also the first time the team had a documented user workflow for arbitration — I mapped out the end-to-end process and shared it with the wider team, using it to pinpoint exactly where things were breaking down based on what I'd seen in interviews and shadow sessions. It became a shared reference point: instead of everyone holding a different mental model of "where arbitration goes wrong," the team could see it laid out in one place.
Two things became clear from this: dealers needed a way to point at exactly what was wrong without having to argue their way into being heard, and the arbitration team needed structured, comparable information from the very first submission — not three emails in.
Design
The first redesign replaced the open text box with the same category structure used in the condition report — dealers selected the specific section and category where the issue was found, instead of describing it in prose. This made every submission instantly comparable against the original disclosure, and removed the emotional friction of having to write your way into being taken seriously. Alongside it, I added the ability to attach photos and documents directly at submission, turning evidence into a starting input instead of something requested after the fact.
I shared the design with dealers and the internal arbitration team before building — response was positive on both sides. We ran an A/B test to confirm the impact, then moved to full launch. Case resolution moved faster, with less friction on both ends of the process.
Round two: aligning to the new design system
The first update solved the reporting problem but surfaced a new one — it had been built in ACV's legacy design system, while the main auction screens around it had already moved to the new one. The flow itself compounded the inconsistency: arbitration opened as a modal over the vehicle detail page, and submitting a report opened a second modal on top of that, each with its own overlay — a stacked, cluttered structure for a task that didn't need to feel that complex.
I redesigned the flow around a sidebar pattern already established elsewhere in the auction experience, replacing the modal-on-modal structure with a single consistent panel and migrating it to the new design system. The underlying flow — category selection, attachments — stayed the same; what changed was giving it a container that felt native to the rest of the product. Design was handed off in full; release outcomes for this round are pending.
Outcome
After launching the structured reporting flow and running an A/B test against the original free-text experience, case resolution moved faster with less back-and-forth — dealers submitted clearer, more actionable reports from the start, and the arbitration team spent less time chasing missing context.
Case resolution time reduction
Reduction in back-and-forth follow-ups
Lift in resolution rate (A/B test)
Summary
This was the first project where I sat inside a team's day-to-day before designing anything - watching dealers and the arbitration team, listening to where the friction actually lived rather than assuming it. That's where the real insight came from. It reinforced something I keep coming back to: the strongest part of this work isn't the interface, it's the conversation and observation that happens before it - understanding people well enough to design something that works for the business and for them at the same time.
Let's talk — I'm always up for a good conversation.
Get in touch
shinpark.to@gmail.com
© 2025 Shin Park. Built with precision.
