Looked into Zenland escrow — but who decides when both sides disagree?

Thanks to $crypto$ for mentioning Zenland in my other thread — I went and read the tutorial. Interesting model: no escrow agent at all, just a smart contract with a buyer protection timer. If the buyer disappears, the seller can release the funds themselves after the timeout.

But it got me thinking about the gap: what happens when it's not a disappearance, but a real disagreement? Buyer says "I sent the fiat", seller says "never received it". A timer can't resolve that — someone has to look at the evidence and make a call.

The model I've been sketching handles it with a designated arbiter, but with a hard constraint: the arbiter can only split the locked funds between buyer and seller. No way to withdraw to themselves or a third party. Judging power, but no stealing power. Everything still on-chain and auditable.

Genuinely curious how people here would want this to work:
1. If a trade goes to arbitration, what's a reasonable timeline? A few days? A week? Longer?
2. After the decision, how fast should the funds be released?
3. Who should arbitrate — platform staff reviewing evidence privately, or open up the order details and let the community weigh in?

Would love to hear what you'd actually trust.