Financial Services · Operations & Throughput
AI-Native Document Processing for Insurance: Production in 6-10 Weeks
A scoped engagement page for insurance carriers, brokers, claims leaders, underwriting teams, and distribution executives evaluating document processing. We cover deliverables, timeline, pricing, controls, and the reporting cadence we run during the Build and optional Run phases.
Projects from $15k · Refundable 7 days · Kickoff within 5 days
Early access: we work with a small first cohort. Engagements are scoped, priced, and shipped end-to-end by our team — not referred to third parties.
In one sentence
AI-native document processing for insurance — A scoped engagement that turns document processing from a manual or partially-automated process into an instrumented production workflow on top of policy administration, with the audit log and reviewer queue as first-class deliverables. Expected delta on documents per hour: −83%.
Key facts
- Industry
- Insurance
- Use case
- Document Processing
- Intent cluster
- Operations & Throughput
- Primary KPI
- documents per hour, extraction accuracy, exception rate, and processing cost
- Top benchmark
- Cycle time per transaction: 47 min median → 8 min median (−83%)
- Systems integrated
- policy administration, claims platforms, broker portals
- Buyer
- insurance carriers, brokers, claims leaders, underwriting teams, and distribution executives
- Risk lens
- fair treatment, claims accuracy, underwriting bias, privacy, and auditability
- Engagement timeline
- Discovery 2 weeks → Build 8 weeks → Run continuous (4-week initial stabilization)
- Team size
- 1 senior delivery + 1 part-time integration eng
- Discovery price
- $6k · 2-week sprint
- Build price
- $20k–$28k · 6-10 weeks
Primary outcome
extract meaning from documents at scale
What we ship
document intake pipeline, extraction schema, validation workflow, and exception queue
KPIs we report on
documents per hour, extraction accuracy, exception rate, and processing cost
Why Insurance teams hire us for this
Three things have changed for insurance teams trying to scale document processing between 2023 and 2026: model quality on real workflows is no longer the bottleneck, vendor-prompt-engineering as a service has saturated, and the work that compounds is operational integration. Our engagement model is built around that third axis — the model and prompt choice are commodity decisions, the operational layer is where defensible advantage lives.
World Economic Forum's Lighthouse Network data on insurance operations shows that the fastest productivity gains come from automating the work between systems, not inside any single system. AI-native delivery sits in that gap.
Industry context: Insurers operate under NAIC AI Model Bulletin + state-level constraints (Colorado, Connecticut led the AI legislation wave). Underwriting + claims AI must demonstrate non-discriminatory outcomes + explainability for adverse actions.
Benchmarks we hit
Reference benchmarks from production deployments of document processing in insurance-comparable contexts. Sources noted per row. Your actuals are measured against the baseline captured in Discovery.
| Metric | Industry baseline | AI-native typical | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
Cycle time per transaction Measured on labelled production samples; excludes outliers >2σ | 47 min median | 8 min median | −83% |
Error rate on repeatable steps Quality control sampling; AI-native gates catch errors before downstream propagation | 6.1% | 1.4% | −77% |
Operator throughput per FTE Same operator handles 3.7× the volume thanks to first-pass AI processing | 1.0× (baseline) | 3.7× | +270% |
Benchmarks are reference values from comparable engagements and authoritative sector benchmarks. Your engagement's baseline is captured during Discovery and actuals are reported weekly during Run against that baseline.
How we operate the workflow
The cadence we run on document processing for insurance is deliberately boring. Monday: pull the metric report against the labelled test set, sample the cases the system was uncertain about, review the reviewer queue calibration. Wednesday: refresh the retrieval index from approved sources, deploy any new prompt versions that beat incumbents on eval, run regression on the test set. Friday: walk through the operator feedback from the week, fold patterns into the playbook, scope the next iteration. Boring is the point — heroic operating cadences do not survive six months.
What we build inside the workflow
What makes document processing survive its first production quarter in insurance is not the prompt — it is the surrounding scaffolding. We allocate at least 40% of the Build budget to non-model engineering: data access, source curation, eval harness, reviewer UI, audit logging. Counterintuitive on a "prompt engineering" timeline, but it is the only configuration where the workflow holds up past month three.
Reference architecture
4-layer AI-native workflow for operations & throughput
Source intake → AI orchestration → Action → Human review & quality. The reference architecture is opinionated about layer boundaries; the implementation adapts to your stack during Build.See the full architecture diagram for Operations & Throughput →
AI-native vs traditional approach
Insurance teams considering document processing typically weigh four paths: in-house build with new hires, BPO contract, generic AI SaaS, or AI-native engagement. The table below compares the trade-offs.
| Dimension | Traditional (in-house build or BPO) | AI-native engagement (us) |
|---|---|---|
| Time-to-first-traffic | Multi-quarter program | 8-week thin-slice ship target |
| Commercial structure | Monthly retainer with FTE assumptions | Discovery, Build, Run priced independently |
| Control surface | Manual audit cycles | Versioned artefacts, signed audit log, named owners per control |
| Throughput-per-FTE | 1.0× (baseline) | −77% |
| Unit economics | Unchanged from baseline | 60-80% lower on routine cases |
| Termination clause | Multi-quarter notice; documentation gaps | Month-to-month Run; handover plan in Build SoW |
Manual claims triage costs $32-48 per claim touch; AI-native triage with grounded policy lookup brings it to $4-9, with reviewer queue on every coverage-edge case.
Engagement scope & pricing
Phased and fixed-price by default. You commit one phase at a time, with a defined deliverable per phase.
Operations engagement
Discovery → Build → Run, each phase committable on its own. No bundling, no annual minimum.
Phase 1 · Discovery
$6k
2-week sprint
Phase 2 · Build
$20k–$28k
6-10 weeks
Phase 3 · Run
$2.5k–$4k / mo
optional, hourly bank also available
~$32k–$58k typical year 1 (60% take the run option for ~6 months)
Workflow redesign, system integration, governance, and weekly operating cadence during Run.
Discovery is the only commitment to start. After Discovery, we scope Build with a fixed price. Run is opt-in, month-to-month, no lock-in.
The 4-phase delivery model
Phase 1 · Weeks 1–2
Discovery
We map the workflow, the systems, the decisions, and the baseline metrics. Output: a scoped statement of work.
Phase 2 · Weeks 2–4
Design
Design phase is where the irreversible architectural choices are made: layer boundaries, substitution interfaces, governance posture, evaluation methodology. We invest disproportionately here because corrections in Build are 10× more expensive.
Phase 3 · Weeks 4–8
Build
End of Build deliverables: the production workflow, the operating runbook, the eval pipeline as code, the reviewer interface, the audit log architecture, the dashboard with KPI tracking. All six are inspectable.
Phase 4 · Weeks 8+
Run
Run is where AI accuracy stops being a one-time evaluation result and becomes a sustained operating metric. We run the weekly cadence; your team takes ownership progressively over the first quarter.
Interactive ROI calculator
Estimate your AI-native ROI for document processing
Reference inputs below are typical for insurance teams in the operations cluster. Adjust them to match your situation.
Projected
Current monthly cost
$56,000
AI-native monthly cost
$18,520
Annual savings
$449,760
67% cost reduction · ~2,601 operator-hours freed / month
Governance and risk controls
The hardest governance question in AI-native delivery is not "how do we audit?" — it is "what cases do we route to humans?". For insurance workflows touching fair treatment, claims accuracy, underwriting bias, privacy, and auditability, we set explicit confidence thresholds during Build, validate them against the labelled test set, and recalibrate weekly during Run. Reviewers see only the cases that need them, with the supporting evidence pre-assembled.
How we report ROI
ROI conversations on document processing usually start with "how much will it save?" and stall there. We reframe them around three measurable shifts: throughput per operator, time per case, and quality variance — all benchmarked against the Discovery baseline. Once those shifts are documented, the cost-per-transaction conversation answers itself.
Selected portfolio
Real builds — document processing in insurance and adjacent sectors
Below are engagements drawn from our active portfolio where the workflow rhymed with document processing in insurance or in adjacent contexts. Scope and stack are accurate; client identities are withheld under engagement NDAs.
Q3 2025
Radiology workflow application — case handling and reporting
Medical imaging operator · Europe
Application supporting radiology workflow: case intake, structured reporting, document handling, and quality-assurance loop. Designed for regulated medical-imaging context with audit trail and role-based access.
- Web app + secure storage
- Structured reporting
- Audit-trail compliance
Q4 2025 → Q1 2026
Owners-association management SaaS — 55+ screens, 47 normalized tables
Mid-market property operator · GCC region
Full operational backbone for a property operator running multiple owners associations: properties, units, owners, accounting, service charges, budgets, maintenance, violations, and a resident-facing community portal — replacing a patchwork of spreadsheets and disconnected accounting tools.
- Next.js + tRPC
- PostgreSQL · Drizzle ORM
- JWT federated identity
Q4 2025
Internal automation tool — workflow automation for consulting operations
Multi-vertical consulting group · Europe
Internal automation tool to streamline workflows, reduce manual administrative load, and improve operational efficiency across consulting and management processes. Integrates with existing systems rather than replacing them, automating handoffs and document flows that previously moved through email.
- Workflow automation engine
- Document-flow integration
- Operational dashboards
Client identities withheld under engagement NDAs. Sector, geography, and scope are accurate. Full case studies on request.
Common pitfall & mitigation
The failure mode we see most often on AI-native document processing engagements in insurance contexts.
Edge cases break the prod thin slice
AI handles 80% but the 20% long tail still floods the human queue
Discovery captures the edge-case taxonomy; Build allocates 30% of effort to the edge-case router
Defensible delivery in a regulated environment
Insurance regulatory expectations on AI have hardened over the last twenty-four months. Supervisors who would once accept "we use AI in this workflow" as a sufficient disclosure now ask for the model card, the validation evidence, the override path, and the customer-disclosure language. Vendors who built for the looser bar are scrambling. We built for the harder bar from the start, because the engagement model we sell insurance teams is one we can defend in front of any reasonable supervisor.
For document processing, that defense rests on five artefacts the Build phase produces. The model card documents the deployed system: what it does, what it does not do, the training data lineage, the evaluation methodology, the known failure modes. The validation evidence is the labelled test set with its full provenance, the periodic eval reports, and the calibration curves. The override path is documented in the operator playbook and instrumented in the reviewer UI. The customer-disclosure language is drafted with your legal team during Build and tested with sample interactions before launch. The control map ties each control to a named owner and a measurable SLA.
The artefacts live in version control alongside the code, not in a shared drive. They are reviewed quarterly during Run and updated when the system changes. When a supervisor asks for them, the export is a single command. This is not theatre — it is the operating posture that lets your team say "yes, we use AI in this workflow, and here is the evidence we run it responsibly", with the evidence available in the time it takes to brew coffee.
Insurance sits inside a regulatory perimeter that an AI-native workflow has to inhabit, not bolt onto afterwards. For document processing, the perimeter includes: data residency rules for the source corpus, model-output traceability for any decision affecting a customer, replayability for the regulator's audit window, and named human accountability for every category of decision. We capture each of those requirements during Discovery, before any code is written, and the Build statement of work names which control implements which requirement. The output is an architecture where compliance is not a phase — it is a layer that lives in the same dashboard as the operating metrics.
The specific controls we ship for insurance engagements track the published expectations of the relevant supervisory bodies. The model registry records every prompt and model version that touched a decision, with an immutable hash. The retrieval index documents source provenance, freshness, and approval status per document. The reviewer queue captures the human owner, the timestamp, and the rationale for every escalation. The attestation pack — exportable on demand — bundles the above for any 30/60/90-day window the regulator chooses. This is the same shape that internal audit teams in insurance have been refining for a decade; we replicate it inside the AI-native operating layer instead of duplicating it in a separate evidence binder.
Where we depart from a traditional risk-and-controls program is in cadence. The classic posture treats compliance as an annual or quarterly attestation; the AI-native posture treats it as a weekly heartbeat. Every Monday during Run we sample low-confidence decisions, calibrate thresholds, and produce a drift report. Every quarter we run a red-team exercise on the most consequential flows. The compliance officer joining one of those Monday reviews sees the same dashboard the operators see, with attestation-ready evidence one click away. That continuity is what auditors recognize as a controlled environment, and it is what lets insurance leadership defend the workflow when the next supervisory examination arrives.
Third-party risk management for AI components in insurance is a growing concern that most workflows handle poorly. document processing engagements typically depend on a model provider, a retrieval store, a vector database, sometimes a fine-tuning service. Each is a vendor in your risk register. We map them all during Build, document substitution paths for each, and demonstrate substitutability in the eval harness — so when one vendor changes pricing, terms, or availability, the workflow can move without a re-architecture.
From kickoff to thin-slice production
If you have ever shipped a non-trivial production system you know the first 30 days are make-or-break. For document processing in insurance, the make-or-break decisions are: what does the labelled test set look like, what is in scope for the integration against policy administration, where does the automation boundary sit, and how is the reviewer queue UX going to feel to your operator team. We answer all four in the first two weeks.
Labelled test set: 200 cases minimum by end of week 2, signed off by the engagement sponsor, covering routine, exceptional, ambiguous, and adversarial. Integration scope: documented and bounded by end of week 1, with the data-access plan reviewed by your engineering team. Automation boundary: drawn deliberately in week 2 — full automation lane, drafted-with-review lane, reserved-to-human lane — with confidence thresholds calibrated against the test set. Reviewer UX: prototyped in week 2 with two of your senior operators in the loop, iterated through week 3.
From day 30, the Build sprint shifts to widening the envelope. The decisions made in the first month are the ones that shape the next 12 months of operating the workflow — which is why we resist the temptation to skip ahead to the model layer before the test set and the reviewer UX have been earned.
For insurance engagements on document processing, the first 30 days are not about building features — they are about producing the labelled test set that will govern every subsequent decision. The test set is the most valuable artefact of the engagement, because it is what makes "did this change make the workflow better?" a measurable question instead of an opinion.
We spend week 1 on test-set capture. The operator team picks 200-400 representative cases spanning routine, exceptional, ambiguous, and adversarial. Each case has the expected outcome, the expected reasoning, and the source citations a reviewer would want to see. The test set is reviewed for coverage gaps, signed off by the engagement sponsor, and version-controlled alongside the prompts.
From week 2, every prompt change, retrieval-index update, and threshold calibration is gated by the eval harness running against this test set. Improvements that beat the incumbent across enough metric slices get promoted; changes that look impressive on one slice but regress on another are flagged for review. By the end of Build, the test set has grown to 600-1000 cases, the workflow has been through 15-25 eval cycles, and insurance leadership has empirical evidence that the system performs on their data, not on a vendor's demo.
This is the practice most insurance AI projects skip because it looks like overhead in the first three weeks. It is the practice that determines whether the workflow survives the third quarter of Run, which is why we treat it as the foundation of Build rather than an afterthought.
A comparable engagement we have shipped
A useful precedent from our active portfolio for document processing in insurance is summarised below. Identity withheld under engagement NDA; sector and stack are accurate.
Internal automation tool — workflow automation for consulting operations. Internal automation tool to streamline workflows, reduce manual administrative load, and improve operational efficiency across consulting and management processes. Integrates with existing systems rather than replacing them, automating handoffs and document flows that previously moved through email. (Multi-vertical consulting group · Europe, Q4 2025.)
What carries over is the operating discipline — the labelled test set as foundational artefact, the weekly evaluation cadence, the audit log architecture, the reviewer-queue UX. What we re-scope is the integration surface specific to insurance (policy administration and the adjacent systems) and the prompt strategy tuned to the document processing vernacular in your category.
For US buyers
US compliance scaffolding for document processing in insurance (NAIC AI Model Bulletin, GLBA, NIST AI RMF)
Insurance engagements touching US clients on document processing ship with the regulatory scaffolding your procurement, compliance, and legal teams expect. The framework that matters most for insurance is NAIC Model Bulletin on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers (NAIC AI Model Bulletin) — addressed below alongside the adjacent frames we encounter.
NAIC AI Model Bulletin
NAIC Model Bulletin on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers
Authority: National Association of Insurance Commissioners (model adopted by state insurance commissioners)
- Scope
- Insurer AI governance, model risk management, fairness testing, third-party AI vendor oversight, documentation, explainability.
- How we ship inside it
- Insurance engagements ship with the model governance documentation regulators expect: model inventory, validation evidence, drift monitoring, fairness testing on claim outcomes, vendor oversight clauses. The reviewer queue is designed for claims-handler supervisory review.
GLBA
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
Authority: FTC / federal banking regulators
- Scope
- Safeguarding non-public personal financial information (NPI), privacy notice, security programme requirements.
- How we ship inside it
- Engagements touching NPI follow GLBA Safeguards Rule: written information security programme, designated qualified individual, access controls, monitoring. NPI flows through encrypted channels only. Subprocessor agreements include GLBA flow-down clauses.
NIST AI RMF
NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI 100-1)
Authority: U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology
- Scope
- Voluntary framework: Govern, Map, Measure, Manage functions for AI system risk.
- How we ship inside it
- Every engagement maps to NIST AI RMF during Discovery. The control map produced becomes the artefact your internal audit and security teams use to defend the workflow.
Premium engagement page · hand-edited
The bespoke playbook for this combination
Underwriting submission triage, policy issuance docs, claims supporting documentation — NAIC-aware processing with reviewer workflow.
Architecture, end-to-end
Document processing AI for P&C and specialty insurance carriers. Underwriting submission packet triage, policy issuance document generation, claim supporting documentation indexing — under NAIC AI Model Bulletin governance.
Submission packet ingest (broker submissions via email/portal/Duck Creek/Guidewire) → AI extraction of risk attributes → policy lookup + rule-based prefill → underwriter review queue with assembled context → audit log per submission, retained per state DOI requirements.
Specific risks we engineer against
The four to six failure modes we have actually encountered on engagements that look like yours. Each has a documented mitigation in the Build SOW.
RiskRisk attribute extraction error affects pricing
MitigationConfidence-thresholded; multi-source cross-check where available; underwriter review on anything below threshold.
RiskFairness/bias on protected attributes
MitigationNAIC bulletin alignment: fairness testing on outcomes weekly; documented per-state filing support.
Reference deltas on UW doc-processing
| Metric | Before | After | Window |
|---|---|---|---|
| Submission triage cycle | 2–4 days | <1 day | 60 days |
| Underwriter capacity / quarter | Baseline | +30 to +50% | 120 days |
| Policy issuance turnaround | 5–10 business days | 1–2 business days | 90 days |
Reference from mid-market and specialty insurance carriers.
Objections we hear most often
How does this handle multi-state filings?+
State-by-state filing support during Build for first 3 states. NAIC bulletin scaffolding applies regardless of state.
Mini SOW
What the Build SOW looks like
Total fee
$28,500 Discovery + Build
Duration
11 weeks to thin-slice production
Week 1–2
Discovery: submission corpus + NAIC framework alignment + state filing scope.
Week 3–6
Extraction + risk scoring + underwriter queue.
Week 7–9
Shadow mode + fairness testing baseline.
Week 10–11
Cutover + state filing support.
Procurement FAQ
Model risk?+
Full NAIC-aligned governance package, reviewable by your model risk team pre-signature.
Real shipped systems
What our clients say
Below: attributions from active clients. Client identities are withheld in public form pending written approval; live references available to qualified procurement contacts on discovery call.
AI SaaS · DACH region
“They shipped the production version of our pricing brain in 6 weeks, including the billing layer and the onboarding flow. We had been bouncing between contractors for 4 months before.”
Founder, AI Pricing SaaS
Outcome: From 0 to live SaaS with paying customers in 6 weeks. Production billing live, AI onboarding flow shipped, 2 pricing tiers active.
Government-licensed legal services platform · GCC region
“A complete bilingual platform compliant with regulator requirements. Technical quality and delivery speed are outstanding.”
Founding team, regulated legal marketplace
Outcome: Ministry-of-Justice-licensed national legal marketplace, EN/AR bilingual, in 16 weeks. Directory + bookings + legal tools + emergency contacts.
Property management operator · GCC region
“We replaced spreadsheets and 4 disconnected tools with a single OA platform. 55 screens, 47 tables, a voting platform, and an internal portal — all on the same identity layer.”
CTO, multi-region property operator
Outcome: Centralised property operations across multiple owners associations. 14-week first release; 8-week follow-on for the staff portal; 6-week follow-on for e-voting.
Before / after
Concrete deltas from shipped engagements
Owners-association management workflows
Property management operator · GCC
Operator was scaling association count and could not maintain manual coordination. Replaced 4 fragmented tools with a single AI-augmented operational backbone.
Metric
Operational surface area
Before
Fragmented across spreadsheets + email + 4 SaaS tools
After (14 weeks Build phase)
Unified SaaS with 55 screens / 47 normalized tables / cross-app identity
Pricing strategy SaaS onboarding
AI pricing SaaS · DACH
Founder shipping AI-native pricing platform for early-stage SaaS. Discovery + Build delivered a working SaaS with subscription billing and an AI brain that learns from each customer.
Metric
Time-to-pricing for a new founder
Before
3–4 weeks of consultant time + spreadsheets
After (6 weeks total Build)
9-step structured AI workflow, completed in 30–45 minutes
Lawyer discovery and appointment booking
National legal marketplace · GCC
Regulated entity needed to launch the national reference platform for legal services. Delivered a Next.js 16 monorepo with bilingual content layer, PDF generation, and police directory.
Metric
Citizen access to certified legal services
Before
Fragmented across social media, no central directory, phone-only booking
After (16 weeks Discovery + Build)
Ministry-licensed bilingual EN/AR marketplace; multi-channel booking; legal tools; emergency hotline
Marketing site + booking funnel
Premium vehicle care specialist · DACH
Niche detailing workshop needed to project premium positioning matching their workmanship. AI-assisted copywriting + image art-direction compressed launch time.
Metric
Brand perception alignment
Before
Generic web presence — did not match workmanship quality
After (3 weeks concept-to-live (AI-augmented build))
Premium responsive site, German-market SEO foundation, appointment-oriented CTAs
For US companies
Start a US-friendly engagement
Discovery from $8,500–$12,000, Build from $35,000–$75,000, optional Run from $5k/mo. Fixed-price, milestone-billed, you own every artefact. Send a short brief and we reply within 5 business days. 11am–4pm ET overlap for live syncs.
USD pricing
Discovery $8,500–$12,000 · Build $35,000–$75,000
US-style commercial
MSA / SOW / mutual NDA standard. DPA with SCCs included.
Limited capacity
We onboard 3–5 new clients per quarter to protect delivery quality.
Build internally or work with us
For insurance CTOs already running an ML platform, the value we bring is not engineering — it is the operating model and the productized governance stack. We have shipped enough variations of this workflow to know what fails in production, what reviewer queues look like at scale, and what evaluation cadence actually catches drift. Reusable knowledge, not reusable code.
What to ask us before signing
- Ask for the labelled test set methodology — how many cases, what the coverage gaps are, who signs them off.
- Ask where the prompt library and retrieval index will live (your cloud or ours) and what happens to them at the end of Run.
- Ask how we calibrate confidence thresholds and how often they are revisited against the insurance reality.
- Ask for the audit log architecture — what is logged, how long it is retained, who can query it.
- Ask how a senior operator on your team becomes the first reviewer and what onboarding we ship to support them.
Recommended first project
The best first project for AI-native document processing in insurance is a contained workflow with enough volume to matter and enough structure to evaluate. Avoid the most politically sensitive process first. Avoid a workflow with no measurable baseline. Choose a process where we can ship a production-grade thin slice, prove adoption, and then extend the same architecture to neighbouring work. A practical target is a 30-day build followed by a 60-day operating period. In the first 30 days, we map the work, connect the minimum data sources, build the assistant, and create the review process. In the next 60 days, the system handles real volume, the team measures outcomes, and we improve the workflow weekly. By day 90, leadership knows whether to expand into adjacent work.
Frequently asked questions
How do you automate document processing in insurance with AI?+
For insurance, the build is biased toward operational durability over demo-grade polish. We instrument every case end-to-end (intake → context → action → review), gate every prompt change behind an evaluation harness, and integrate against policy administration + claims platforms. The workflow goes to production in 6-10 weeks and operates against documents per hour, extraction accuracy, exception rate, and processing cost.
What does it cost to automate document processing for insurance teams?+
Phased pricing — you commit to one phase at a time. Discovery is $6k for 2-week sprint. Build, scoped from Discovery, runs $20k–$28k over 6-10 weeks. Run is opt-in at $2.5k–$4k / mo per optional, hourly bank also available. ~$32k–$58k typical year 1 (60% take the run option for ~6 months)
What is the best AI agent for document processing in insurance?+
The model is rarely the most consequential choice on document processing in insurance. What matters more: the retrieval shape against your approved sources, the confidence-threshold calibration against the labelled test set, the reviewer queue UX, and the audit log architecture. We benchmark frontier models (Claude, GPT-4-class, Gemini) against your data and select for the accuracy/cost/latency profile that fits your operational reality — not a generic leaderboard.
How long does it take to deploy AI document processing for insurance?+
Production traffic on document processing for insurance typically starts at week 6-8 of Build, after the labelled test set, the eval harness, the reviewer queue, and the audit log are all in place. The first quarter of Run is paired operation — your team takes the dashboard, we stay on the architecture decisions. By the end of the first Run quarter, your team is operating the workflow with the cadence we ship as part of Build.
What do we own, and what do you own?+
The ownership boundary is documented in the Build statement of work. Our side: workflow architecture, prompt library, retrieval shape, evaluation harness, reviewer-queue design, audit log architecture, weekly operating cadence. Your side: data access, source curation by your subject-matter experts, policy interpretation, exception approval, final commercial decisions. Every artefact is yours at the end of Run.
What's the operating cadence during Run?+
Monday metric review, Wednesday prompt and retrieval refresh, Friday calibration audit. The cadence is the deliverable; the prompts are the artefacts that change between cycles. Quarterly architecture retrospective. The cadence is documented and absorbable by your operator team progressively during the first quarter of Run.
Do you train models on our data?+
No. We do not train any model on client data. Anthropic Zero-Data-Retention is enabled by default; OpenAI default-no-training is honoured. Prompts, retrieval indexes, audit logs, and integration data live in your cloud account under your IAM. At engagement end, every artefact transfers to your repository.
What if we want to exit the engagement?+
Discovery and Build are fixed-scope, so there is no mid-engagement exit cost. Run is month-to-month with 30-day notice. Every artefact (prompts, eval harness, integration code, dashboards, runbooks) is in your repository throughout the engagement, not behind our SaaS. There is no lock-in.
What does success look like 90 days after Build closes?+
documents per hour, extraction accuracy, exception rate, and processing cost measurably improved against the Discovery baseline. Your team is operating the workflow with the cadence we shipped during Build. The audit log is queryable. The reviewer queue is calibrated. The next workflow scope is informed by real production evidence rather than initial assumptions.
What support is included after the engagement ends?+
Optional Run retainer covers weekly cadence, prompt refresh, retrieval index updates, and reviewer-queue calibration. Architecture-level questions and breaking-change support are billed hourly outside of Run. Most engagements transition Run in-house at month 6-12; we stay available for architecture decisions for 12 months at no extra charge.
How does this integrate with policy administration and our existing stack?+
Discovery scopes the integration footprint explicitly. We integrate at the API layer; no replatforming required. The Build statement of work names exactly which systems are connected, which data flows are bidirectional, and what authentication patterns we use (SSO, service accounts, OAuth scopes). The integration code lives in your repository.
What does your team look like during an engagement?+
Discovery: 1 senior delivery lead + 1 PM, ~30 hours/week. Build: 1 senior delivery lead + 2-3 senior AI engineers, ~50-80 hours/week across the team. Run: 1 delivery owner + 1 engineer on weekly cadence. We do not use offshore staff augmentation. Every engineer touching your engagement is senior-level.
Sources we reference
The following sources inform the architecture, governance, and benchmarks we apply on insurance engagements. Cited here so you can verify and dig deeper.
- NAIC AI Resources
- EU AI Act — European Commission
- Helpful, reliable, people-first content — Google Search Central
- Lighthouse Network — Operations AI Adoption — World Economic Forum + McKinsey
- Operations Excellence Through AI — BCG
- NAIC Model Bulletin on AI — National Association of Insurance Commissioners
- EIOPA Thematic Review on AI in Insurance — European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority
- Google Search Central: URL structure best practices
Concepts on this page:
AI workflow·Thin slice·Reviewer queue·Evaluation harness·Tool use·Audit logFull glossary →High-intent reads
Start the engagement
Start a Insurance engagement
Tell us about your workflow, the systems involved, and the KPI you want to move. We'll send a scoped statement of work within 5 business days.