And the rules defining what is 'clearly erroneous' and what is not is intentionally made vague because arbitrage of this clause makes the exchanges money.
They stand as the arbiter of who will gain money and who will lose. There basically is a series of cases 'erroring parties vs Goldman' and 'erroring Goldman vs other parties' and whether Goldman will lose money is decided by an Exchange (hint: they rule in Goldman favor every time, making an analogy with forced arbitration even more proper)