Result Verification on HubMatch

Once a match ends, the platform has to decide what the official result was. This is the result verification system: the workflow that turns two captains' reports into a finalised match outcome that updates ratings, advances brackets, and fills league standings. Understanding how verification works helps you report results correctly, avoid disputes, and recognise when something has gone wrong with the platform's automatic handling.

The Three Verification Paths

Every HubMatch match resolves through one of three paths:

1. Both-agree path. Both captains submit identical results. Verified instantly, no human review required.
2. Auto-accept path. Only one captain submits; the other does not respond within the time window. The submitted result is accepted by default after the window expires.
3. Dispute path. Both captains submit, but the results disagree. The match enters dispute and admins review the evidence.

The vast majority of matches resolve through path 1. Paths 2 and 3 exist to handle the realistic cases where a captain forgets to report or where one team contests the other's submission.

Both-Agree Path

The happy case is simple and fast.

Captain A submits the final score (for example, Team Alpha 3 - 1 Team Bravo) with a screenshot of the in-game scoreboard.

Captain B opens the match page, sees Captain A's submission, and either:

• Confirms it (one click) - the result is finalised.
• Submits their own identical report independently - the system detects the match and finalises the result.

The whole exchange usually takes under five minutes. Both captains see the match transition to COMPLETED status, ratings update, the bracket advances, and the next round becomes available.

For the both-agree path to work cleanly, both captains need to be paying attention immediately after the match. Build a habit of opening the match page the moment the in-game scoreboard appears.

Auto-Accept Path (Five-Minute Window)

If one captain submits a result and the other captain does not respond within five minutes, the system auto-accepts the submitted result.

The five-minute window is a deliberate trade-off. Long enough that a captain who is briefly distracted can still respond; short enough that match flow does not stall for inactive teams.

When a captain fails to respond within the window, the platform records the auto-accept event in the match history. Repeated auto-accepts against a captain (especially in matches they lost) trigger a no-show pattern in the violation system, which escalates to warnings and eventually suspensions. Auto-accept is not a free pass to ignore reporting - it is a fallback for occasional misses.

If the auto-accepted result is wrong, the losing captain can still file a dispute after auto-accept by using the post-verification dispute button on the match page. This rolls the match back into review. Post-acceptance disputes carry stricter evidence requirements: you must provide a screenshot that visibly contradicts the accepted score.

Dispute Path

When both captains submit but disagree, the match enters a disputed state. Examples of disputes:

• Captain A reports 3-2; Captain B reports 2-3 (each captain claims to have won).
• Captain A reports 3-1; Captain B reports 3-2 (agreement on winner, disagreement on map scores).
• One captain reports an unrostered player on the opposing side.

When the results disagree, each team may re-submit their result once. If the re-submitted results still disagree, the dispute auto-escalates to a private Discord channel and the match enters ESCALATED status. There, an admin or organiser reviews:

• The screenshots both captains submitted.
• The Team chat history (if any).
• Player check-in records (to verify roster).
• Any OCR-extracted scoreboard data from screenshots.

The admin or organiser then chooses one of four outcomes: Team A wins, Team B wins, Remake (replay from a given score), or Continue.

While a dispute is open, the match stays disputed and dependent matches (later bracket rounds, league fixtures depending on this team's standings) are paused.

Three Reporting Options After Disagreement

When a captain sees an opposing report that does not match their own outcome, they have three choices on the match page:

1. Accept the opposing report - agree to the other team's submission. The match finalises in their favour.
2. Complete as-is - accept the result but flag it as contested for record-keeping. Used when the difference is minor (a wrong map score on a series the other team did win).
3. Report a violation - escalate to admin review with a specific violation claim (cheating, unrostered player, deliberate misreporting).

Choosing the right option matters. "Complete as-is" is the right call when the winner is correct but the details are off and you do not want to drag admins into a small discrepancy. "Report a violation" should be reserved for actual misconduct, not for normal scoring disagreements - admins triage violations and bad-faith reports cost reputational weight.

Admin Override and Manual Verification

In rare circumstances, an admin can manually set a match result without captain input. This is reserved for edge cases:

• Both teams no-show entirely and the match is recorded as a double-forfeit.
• A platform bug prevented normal reporting and the match has to be reconstructed from external evidence.
• A successful violation report retroactively flips a previously verified result.

Manual admin verification is logged with the admin's name and a reason. The match history page shows the full audit trail, so any manual intervention is transparent to both teams and to the community.

Why This Process Exists

Verification is the layer that makes HubMatch a real competitive platform rather than a results-honor-system. The goals are:

• Speed. Most matches verify in minutes, not days. Brackets move on schedule.
• Fairness. Disagreements get a structured review, not a shouting match in Discord.
• Accountability. Every report is logged, every dispute is reviewed, every override is auditable.
• Resilience. Auto-accept and dispute fallbacks ensure the system handles human error without grinding to a halt.

Captains who internalise the verification flow - report quickly, screenshot every match, dispute only with evidence - keep their teams moving and earn the operational reputation that opens doors to bigger events.

Verification is not bureaucracy. It is the connective tissue between gameplay and competitive consequence. Treat it that way.