The decision
When a claim arrives, does it fast-track, go to standard handling, or get referred?
Route each claim to fast-track, standard handling, or referral the moment it arrives, using rules your team can read. Every decision keeps the trace that produced it, so a regulator, a reinsurer, or your own QA team can see exactly why a claim went where it went.
When a claim arrives, does it fast-track, go to standard handling, or get referred?
Your claims system posts the claim to a single endpoint and waits for the answer, or hands it off to run in the background. Same rules either way.
Coverage in force, claim type, reserve amount, deductible, prior claim count, and jurisdiction are checked by rules you wrote and can read. No model is consulted to establish a fact the data already contains.
Loss descriptions, adjuster notes, and attached documents are classified and summarized. Those outputs become facts on the claim, and rules decide what they mean.
Conclusions feed other rules until the routing decision settles. If a fact later changes, conclusions that depended on it withdraw themselves rather than going stale.
Fast-track, standard queue, or referral, with the reason attached. Anything outside the rules is referred rather than guessed.
Most automation records that a decision happened. This records why it happened, on logic you can prove was in force at the time.
Every rule that fired, in what order, and the actual values each condition matched on. Not a log line saying the claim was fast-tracked - the reasoning that got there.
Decisions are pinned to the published version that produced them. A claim decided in March is explained by March logic, not by what the rules say today.
Rule changes move through draft, review, and publish. The approver is recorded on the release, and a release can be blocked until its test cases pass.
Each publish produces an evidence record signed with RSA-SHA256, verifiable against a public key. It proves the logic in force on a given date has not been altered since.
Who changed what, when, and from which address, in a container that is written to and never edited. Exportable, and streamable to your SIEM.
Referral is a first-class outcome, not a failure. Any rule can pause the run and put the claim in front of a person, and the reviewer sees the trace that led there before they decide. Reviewers sign in, so the run resumes on their answer with their identity recorded on the decision alongside the rules that asked for it. A forwarded link does not let someone outside the environment answer on their behalf.
The boundary is enforced by how the workflow is built, not by a policy document. AI turns text into facts. Rules you wrote decide what those facts mean.
The same claim gets the same answer on a Tuesday morning and a Friday night, because the rule is the process rather than a description of it.
Clean claims that meet every fast-track condition stop waiting in a queue behind claims that need a person.
QA, internal audit, and market conduct examiners read the decision off the record instead of asking an adjuster to remember.
A threshold moves in the editor, gets tested against saved cases, and publishes behind an approval. No release train.
This is not a claims system and does not try to be. It answers one question your claims system asks it, over an API call, and hands back a decision plus the reasoning. The claim stays where it lives.
Then they are correct and invisible. Nobody outside engineering can read them, changing one is a deployment, and the procedure keeps no record of why a specific claim went where it went. Moving that logic here keeps the determinism and adds the authoring, the tests, and the trail.
Agreed, and it does not. AI reads text and returns facts. Rules you wrote make every decision. You can point at the rule that produced any outcome, and the boundary is enforced by the design rather than by a policy document.
A fair question and we will not pretend otherwise. On a dedicated deployment the platform runs inside your own Azure subscription, so the data, the execution history, and the rules stay in infrastructure you control and can export in full at any time.
The synchronous endpoint returns the decision inside your own request, with a default 30 second budget you can lower per call. It is a real run, so it produces a run record and a trace rather than a bare answer.
Yes. The run is stored with the ruleset version that produced it, so the trace can be read back and the same inputs re-run against the same published logic.
Rules are authored in a visual editor and as decision tables, so an analyst who understands the policy can maintain them. Verification catches rules that can never fire, conflicting writes, and gaps in coverage before anything is published.
On a dedicated deployment, no. The platform runs in your own Azure subscription and, paired with Azure OpenAI, model calls stay inside your boundary too.
Pick the decision that costs your team the most time and the most argument. In one working session we will model it, run it against your own examples, and show you the trace it produces. If it is not a fit, we will say so.