1. Whether an arbitration award is "mutual, final, and definite " upon the matter submitted under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) when it purports to dispose of "all [specified] claims, " yet explicitly states submission of alternative or fewer claims than those actually Submitted to the arbitration and analyzes only said specified claims and the award 's own reasoning shows that the all-dispositive language rests on analysis that did not reach an Omitted, submitted claim; and whether a court may confirm by inference or must vacate or remand for clarification.

2. Whether an arbitrator bound by an agreement to apply substantive law and to award only remedies available in court "exceeds [her] powers " under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) when the award departs from those directives.

3. Whether an arbitrator "exceeds [her] powers, " 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4), by resolving a dispositive issue principally/ultimately by reference to prior arbitral awards or arbitral custom rather than applying the governing substantive law required by the parties ' agreement.

4. Whether the constituents of "manifest disregard of the law" remain a cognizable basis for vacatur under the FAA —either as a judicial gloss on, or conduct encompassed by, 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2) —(4)—and, if so, how that standard should be applied to an arbitration award.

Whether an arbitration award is 'mutual, final, and definite' under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) when it purports to dispose of all claims yet explicitly analyzes only specified claims, whether an arbitrator exceeds her powers by departing from substantive law requirements, and whether 'manifest disregard of the law' remains a cognizable basis for vacatur under the FAA