Arbitrability has two distinct layers. Subject-matter arbitrability asks whether the type of claim can be arbitrated at all — some categories, including certain antitrust claims, bankruptcy core proceedings, and specific consumer or employment statutory claims in particular jurisdictions, may be non-arbitrable by statute or public policy. A separate question is scope: whether this particular dispute falls within the wording of this particular arbitration clause.

Who decides arbitrability is itself a frequently litigated threshold fight. Courts presumptively decide gateway arbitrability questions themselves, unless the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated that gateway question to the arbitrator, most commonly through an explicit delegation clause or by incorporating institutional rules that grant the arbitrator competence to decide it.

Juricratic treats arbitrability as a gating branch that determines which downstream tree — arbitral or judicial — the rest of the simulation even runs on, so it belongs as an early binary dial rather than being folded silently into settlement-value assumptions.

A party resisting arbitration argues the claim is statutorily non-arbitrable or falls outside the clause's scope, while a party favoring arbitration argues the clause clearly delegates even that gateway question to the arbitrator rather than a court.