● Rottawhite — AI Systems Studio

Compare what was bound against what was quoted.

The carrier sends the policy. Somebody is supposed to read all sixty pages and confirm it matches what was agreed. Often nobody does.

Test it in a week — $2,500 →How we prove accuracy →

Today

What the desk looks like now

  • Policy checking is the task that gets deferred when the desk is busy, which is exactly when errors get through.
  • Deviations between binder and issued policy are found by the client, at claim time, which is the worst possible moment.
  • Endorsements arrive throughout the term and are filed rather than checked.
  • The exposure is errors and omissions, and it is carried by the brokerage.

The system

What the agent does

Reads both documents in full

The issued policy and the quote, binder, or submission it should match, including the forms and endorsements schedule rather than just the declarations page.

Compares term by term

Limits, sublimits, deductibles, named insureds, locations, forms attached, and exclusions — checked as structured fields rather than as a text similarity score.

Flags every deviation with a citation

Each difference reported with both source passages side by side, so a reviewer confirms in seconds instead of hunting through two documents.

Grades by materiality

A changed mailing address and a missing additional-insured endorsement are not the same finding, and are not presented as though they were.

Evidence

What gets logged

The audit trail is the part that makes this usable in regulated work. Every output traces back to a document.

  • Every compared term, including the ones that matched
  • Both source passages for each deviation, with document and page
  • Reviewer disposition on each flag, retained as the record of the check
  • A signed-off record per policy, which is the artifact your E&O position rests on
How the audit trail works →

How accuracy is measured

Built from your own documents, including the bad ones. An average that hides the hard cases is not a number worth having.

  • Deviation recall against a labelled set of policies with known discrepancies
  • False positive rate, because a checker that cries wolf stops being read
  • Accuracy by carrier and form family, since templates differ substantially
How the eval harness works →

Questions

Common objections

Is this reliable enough to replace a human checker?

It is built to make a human checker fast, not absent. The agent reads everything and presents the differences; a person decides what matters. The gain is that policies actually get checked rather than deferred.

How do you handle manuscript forms?

They are the hard case and they belong in the test set from day one. Where a form is genuinely bespoke, the system flags it for full human review rather than producing a confident comparison it cannot support.

What does this do for our E&O exposure?

It produces a consistent, timestamped record that each policy was checked and what was found. We are engineers, not your broker — but a documented check is materially easier to stand behind than an undocumented one.

Also

Other back-office workflows

Workflow

Submission intake

A submission arrives as a forwarded email with six attachments in four formats. Someone keys it in. That someone is usually expensive.

Workflow

Certificates of insurance

Low value per unit, enormous volume, zero tolerance for error, and it never stops. Certificates are the definition of work a machine should do.

Workflow

Loss runs

Every carrier formats loss runs differently, none of them formats them well, and an underwriter needs five years of them in one view.

Next step

Start with one workflow.

A week, a fixed fee, and a measured answer on your own documents. If it will not work, you find out for $2,500.

Book a 30-min call →The $2,500 sprint →