Clarifying independent review when the governing body is conflicted #7

Question about the Conflict Resolution Mechanism pattern

The existing pattern provides a useful progression from informal conversation to mediation and arbitration, and emphasises impartiality. I'm exploring how these mechanisms might be applied in small, volunteer-run commons organisations, where there may be no higher body to refer a dispute to. One question that arose is:

How should a small commons appoint an impartial reviewer when the person or body that would ordinarily appoint the reviewer is itself implicated in the dispute?

For example, a dispute might concern the governing body's own authority, conduct or decision, with no higher internal body available.

A few related questions:

Should organisations establish a reviewer-selection process in advance?

How should conflicts of interest, or challenges to a reviewer's impartiality, be handled?

What fallback is appropriate when no suitable internal reviewer is available?

How should urgent protective action be distinguished from the final determination of the underlying dispute?

I'm not proposing a new governance framework or a universal procedure. I'm trying to understand whether this situation is already adequately addressed by the existing pattern or related Commons OS material.

Is this a gap worth addressing in the pattern, or is it already covered elsewhere in Commons OS?