I agree with this, as per my comments on another suggestion. The language used throughout disputes is very negative and confrontational.
I like Ian's suggestions of Overturned and Upheld.

Totally agree with this suggestion. The whole language used throughout the Disputes section is very negative: dispute, arbitrator, rejected etc.... it creates the impression that the agent need to argue/dispute their score...
I would support a change to a more positive/collaborative use of language such as review or appeal instead of dispute, reviewer instead of arbitrator etc.

In a previous QA Setting w/ a different employer, we titled disputes as "Overturned"(Dispute Accepted) and "Rating Upheld"(Dispute Rejected) as we've had 1-2 instances of user errors when handling disputes in Playvox.

It wouldn't let me attach this above. Thanks!

How disputes should be used:
The function should be used for disputes as well as for clarification requests and general questions regarding a certain question or section in an evaluation.
The agent can create a dispute without choosing any specific topic (dispute, clarification, general question). After a dispute is received, the evaluator can then change it to a clarification request, if applicable.
Problem:
Employees are a bit scared to use the feature as they assume it is only for pure disputes. They don't open a dispute for unclear cases (clarification) because they think it would be too big of a deal, even tho the function should be used for all the cases stated above.
Solution ideas:
1. Rename of the function (e.g., Clarification needed, review case, recheck etc.)
2. Give agents the option to choose between dispute and clarification request beforehand