A Supreme Court appeal claiming failure to examine a decisive fact against a judgment deciding on a challenge to an arbitral award must be understood as reducing the review of reasoning to the "constitutional minimum". Only motivational flaws that amount to constitutionally significant violations of law may be challenged - such as complete absence of reasons, apparent reasoning, irreconcilable contradictions, or reasoning that is objectively incomprehensible.
In Supreme Court proceedings against a judgment on challenge of an arbitral award, an appellant claiming failure to examine a decisive fact must specify: the "historical fact" whose examination was omitted; the textual or other evidence showing it existed; how and when this fact was discussed between the parties; and why it was decisive, with exact reference to where the document appears in the file.
Failure to examine pieces of evidence does not amount to failure to examine a decisive fact where the relevant historical fact was nonetheless considered by the judge hearing the challenge to the arbitral award. Even if the judgment did not account for all the evidence, it is enough that the judge ruled on the alleged fact, even if finding against it.