As per the FAQ on disputed flags:
A disputed flag is a flag that was issued on a post that then received an "invalid flag" flag from a user with access to moderator tools. Both the original flag and the flag used to mark it as invalid will be listed as "disputed" in the respective user's flagging summary. Once a flag has been disputed, its state will not be changed by any additional action on the post.
This means a disputed flag is more of a technical detail, as a disputed flag can still be acted upon or not acted upon. However, many of our more consciences users are worried by their disputed flags and come to meta to ask on what details of their flag was inappropriate. A recent example, and the example that prompted this feature request is Why was the flag I raised disputed?. This restores my faith in the stack overflow community, but the answer that is usually given is "don't worry, a disputed flag just means 1 person disagreed, in this case everyone else agreed and you flagged appropriately".
All this brings the question, what is the point of telling users their flag is disputed, as it simply worries them, seemingly without any positive effects. Which brings me to my either-or feature request.
Only mark a flag as disputed if 2+ users mark it as invalid, this will avoid the case where flags in which the vast majority agree the flag was appropriate or the case where a 10k user simply "fat fingered" it. This would give disputed the meaning of "not necessarily wrong, but certainly controversial”
Stop marking things as disputed at all, to the non stack-exchange ear disputed and declined both sound like "no". Wait till the final outcome of the flag is decided and mark the flag helpful/declined according to that. If neither of these are ultimately appropriate mark it with something neutral such as "handled".