Keep the source attached to every important answer.
Contracts, claims, policies, and submissions hold the evidence. We retrieve the source, structure the file, and prepare the next step while qualified people keep the decision.
- Matter and contract systems
- Claims intake platforms
- Underwriting workbenches
- Policy administration
Master Services Agreement
Acme Corp and Northwind Ltd, v3, 18 pages
9.1 Each party's total liability shall not exceed the fees paid in the twelve months before the claim.
9.2 Liability for breach of confidentiality is capped at three months of fees.
9.3 Neither party excludes liability for fraud or wilful misconduct.
10.1 Either party may terminate on 30 days written notice.
Confidentiality cap is 3 months. Your playbook asks for 12.
Clause 9.2, page 14The general cap matches your standard position.
Clause 9.1, page 14Fraud carve-out is present.
Clause 9.3, page 14
Review a contract
Three workflow gaps keep reviewers away from judgment.
- 01
The answer has no trail.
A reviewer gets a confident result but cannot locate the clause, policy term, or authority behind it.
- Passage attached to each answer
- Quoted text before interpretation
- Explicit unsupported state
1 in 6
or more of benchmark queries were hallucinated by legal AI research tools
Stanford HAI, 2024 - 02
The review surface is still a document stack.
People find repeated terms across contracts, then copy dates, limits, and obligations into a separate sheet.
- Terms extracted into a grid
- Deviation flags against the playbook
- Each cell linked to source
02
- 03
Intake steals the specialist's time.
Broker packets and loss reports arrive as mixed files, then someone rekeys them before review can begin.
- Fields pulled from the packet
- Missing information check
- Routing with context
40%
of an underwriter's time goes to administrative work, leaving 30% for underwriting
Accenture
AI layers for legal and insurance workflows.
Product teams and operators in legal and insurance get a grounded AI layer on top of the documents, matters, policies, and claims they already manage.
For legal and insurance product teams
Agreement analysis
- Unusual terms highlighted
- Clauses drafted from precedents
- New matters read from email
- Findings tied to the agreement
Research and authority
- Research notes and first drafts
- Search by meaning and issue
- Unsupported authority called out
- Answers from your own library
Matter intake and management
- Questions over firm documents
- New matter routing
- Briefing before a client call
- Time entries prepared for review
Discovery and litigation review
- First-pass coding with reasons
- Questions across the review set
- Long documents condensed
- Facts arranged by date
Claims operations
- Damage details read from photos
- Claim files organized
- Coverage issues surfaced
- Loss reports summarized for intake
Underwriting and policy work
- Broker packets structured
- Submissions compared with appetite
- Risk files prepared for review
- Limits and exclusions identified
For firms and insurance operators
Law firms, carriers, MGAs, and claims teams get support with intake and document work while qualified people keep the decisions.
- 01
Make intake ready for review.
Submissions, loss reports, and new matters are read from email and attachments, checked for missing fields, and sent to the right owner.
Talk to us about this - 02
Give reviewers one place to compare terms.
Obligations, dates, limits, and exclusions are pulled from contracts and policies into a source-linked review grid.
Talk to us about this - 03
Start every call with the file in view.
Matter and claim records are condensed into facts, open questions, and supporting documents before a person speaks with the client or claimant.
Talk to us about this - 04
Keep your expertise visible in AI research.
Practice areas, insurance lines, and specialties are organized for ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity, with a clear route back to your site.
Talk to us about this
Four operating rules for legal and insurance AI.
- 01
Show the passage behind the result.
A reviewer can open the source quote from every answer, flag, and summary.
- 02
If the file is silent, say so.
The layer marks unsupported questions instead of filling the gap with a guess.
- 03
Keep professional judgment with people.
The layer drafts and sorts. A qualified person approves anything sent to a client, claimant, or court.
- 04
Work where the team already works.
Word, document management, practice systems, and claims systems stay in the workflow.
Where this industry usually starts
AI Product & UX Design
A source citation is not useful if the reviewer cannot see what it supports or challenge the interpretation. We design the review surface, evidence states, and approval step around the document.
AI Experience (AX) Audit
We map where reviewers lose time, where answers lose their source, and where intake stalls. The audit ties the first intervention to a baseline such as review hours per matter or handling time per claim.
AI Automation & Agentic AI
Intake, clause extraction, claims triage, and submission checks are structured work with a clear human endpoint. We connect the layer to the documents and systems already used by the team.
The layer fits the systems already in use.
Your documents, matters, policies, and claims remain the source of record while the AI layer adds review and retrieval.
Document repositories
iManage and NetDocuments
Matter management
Clio
Contract systems
Ironclad
Research services
Westlaw and Lexis
Office tools
Microsoft Word and Outlook
Review platforms
Relativity and Everlaw
Insurance core systems
Guidewire and Duck Creek
Industry forms
ACORD forms
The questions that decide it.
What does a first AI engagement cost for legal or insurance teams?
We start with the AI Experience Audit, a fixed price sprint lasting two weeks. It produces a fixed build price, and the audit fee is credited to that build. Current figures are on the pricing page.
How does the layer handle an answer the file cannot support?
What is the timeline for the first feature?
Can the workflow stay inside Word and document management?
Where should we begin: intake, review, or research?
Can the layer check work against our own playbooks and forms?
Which metric should we use after launch?
Show us where legal or insurance review loses the thread.
In one 20 minute call, we will identify whether the gap is in sources, workflow, or scope, then outline what the first useful layer would need.
- NDA from the first conversation.
- Response within 24 hours, guaranteed.
- Founder-led from first call to handoff.
