30-40% Cost per claim reduction is available
Carriers that have automated the claim workflow operate at $25 to $36 per claim against an industry norm of $40 to $60.
Financial services
Commission reconciliation, bordereaux and reinsurance settlement. Still done by hand.
Tracing a discrepancy back through policy admin, bordereaux and carrier statements has no automated equivalent at any accessible price.
Book a 20-minute call Free. No demo, no slides.
103.7%
property and casualty combined ratio, meaning the industry paid out more than it took in on underwriting.
What is happening
The bordereau arrived as a spreadsheet, and it does not match the policy system.
The hardest reconciliations are the ones nobody automated
Commission due versus commission paid. Premium written versus premium collected. Bordereaux against carrier statements. Reinsurance settlement. All manual, all monthly.
Tracing a discrepancy crosses three systems
Policy admin, the bordereau spreadsheet and the carrier statement, with no shared identifier between them.
FNOL to first action is where the experience is decided
Cycle time by stage, first-pass processing rate and straight-through rate are measurable. Most operations measure none of them.
Intelligence, plumbed in
A bordereau with the columns moved is still readable.
We build the mapping, hold it in a semantic layer rather than in a script, and score it against settled months.
How we make AI survive real data-
Connectors -
A semantic layer -
Evals you can check
What changes
Judge us on this, not on what we built.
Reconciled Commission and premium matched automatically
Across policy admin, bordereaux and carrier statements, with discrepancies traced to the policy rather than to a total.
Cycle time Claims that move without being chased
Straight-through processing where the data supports it, and a ranked queue where it does not.
Measured The metrics that actually run a claims operation
Handle time, FNOL-to-first-action, first-pass rate and cost per claim, by stage and by handler.
Research
We wrote a full page on each of these, with the sources.
Each one carries its own figures and the citations behind them. Start with whichever sounds most like your week.
However hard, whatever it is
Bordereaux are one example. Bring the messier one.
We wrote this about settlement matching. If yours is claims triage, broker onboarding or a solvency return, the method is the same.
-
01 We sit with you
Days where the work happens, not a workshop in a meeting room. We watch the job get done and write down the shortcuts nobody wrote down.
-
02 We read everything
Your data, your rules, your vendors and their documentation, and the published research on your sector. We report what is actually in there.
-
03 We break it to first principles
Not which tool fixes this. What is actually causing it, taken apart until we reach the piece that cannot be divided further.
-
04 Then we build
Weeks, not quarters. By this point we are not guessing what to build, and guessing is the thing that makes projects long.
Where we sit
Your policy system stays. We build the settlement work around it.
4
What you get
- Reconciled Commission and premium matched automatically
- Cycle time Claims that move without being chased
- Measured The metrics that actually run a claims operation
3
Built new for you — none of this exists in your stack today
- A reader that takes any broker sheet, however it is laid out
- A commission statement a broker can query themselves
- A break list that names the policy, not just the total
2
The settlement layer Reads your policy and broker files. Posts nothing without a checker.
Connectors, one agreed meaning per field, and a model reading what no
field holds. Accuracy measured on your own records.
1
- Guidewire
- Duck Creek
- Sapiens
- policy admin systems
- bordereaux
What you already run — unchanged, and still yours
However the broker sends it, we can read it. A bordereau with the columns moved, a PDF statement, a legacy policy screen. All of it can be matched.
-
No API -
No documentation -
A terminal from 1994 -
It arrives as paper -
The vendor said no -
It reports nothing
Not a list of limits. Name yours on the call.
And once we can reach it, a model can read it. Most of the value here is in the sources nobody ever structured — the note, the letter, the screen.
Who this is for
The people who feel this first
-
Chief Operating Officer -
Head of Claims -
Finance Director -
Head of Underwriting Operations -
Compliance Manager
Straight answers
The questions you would ask on the call
-
Our bordereaux arrive as spreadsheets in twelve different formats. Is that a problem?
It is the normal case, and it is the actual work. A system that only handles a clean standard format solves the easy ten percent. Handling the twelve real formats, including the one that changes every quarter, is what makes it useful.
-
Can you work with Guidewire or Duck Creek?
Yes. We build alongside the policy and claims platform rather than replacing it, integrating through their APIs and data exports.
-
What does an engagement look like?
A free call first. Then we look at your real reconciliation breaks and claim times. If the numbers justify a build, we quote a fixed price before starting.
-
Can AI handle a bordereau with the columns moved?
Yes. The mapping lives in a semantic layer, not in a script, and it is scored against months you have already settled.
Next step
Start with your own numbers.
-
We talk
20 minutes. Free.
You tell us what is not working. We ask how the work really gets done.
-
We look at your data
A few weeks.
We read your systems, including the notes and letters no field holds. You get what is really in there, what it costs, and the accuracy we can hit.
-
We build
A few months.
Only if step 2 says it is worth it. Fixed price, agreed before we start.