Hence, and upon the challenge of an arbitral award, the annulment judge may not be deprived of exploring the reasoning of the award and reviewing with care, understanding, awareness, and persistence in order to locate and identify the prerequisites of the raised challenges in its regards which may cause it - depending on its clear existence and severe effects - to be annulled. From a public policy perspective, the judiciary is always entitled to audit and authenticate whether the standards of the arbitral proceedings (procedural integrity) were maintained or substantially, dangerously, and obviously disregarded. Also, the judiciary has the discretion to determine whether the award included in its result or reasons actual and obvious aggression on these rules of public policy that is well established and firm, or not. Under the auspices of these rules, by default, the necessary initial rules that follow from the disciplines and standards of logic and are presumed by facts, such rules may not be set aside by the arbitrator, nor may it be wasted, or be ignored excessively. Hence, and within strict, and limited legal boundaries, the judiciary may lay its word regarding the arbitral award, annul it, or refuse its annulment action. In all cases, and despite the flexibility of the legal and formal disciplines of the arbitration - by analogy with the rough or rigid disciplines of the judiciary - the arbitrator may not exercise full, absolute, unchecked, a power that is unstoppable in wildness and direction when it comes to the scope of significance and implications of the public policy, its instructions, and prohibitions, and its modern balances that have become embedded. No award, even if it is arbitral, may be given immunity as it is - like any other - does not originate from a holy source. As arbitration is not sought for itself and it is not an advantage whereby the arbitrator is set free from all restrictions.