Insurance

Move the claim forward.
Keep the decision explainable.

Connect the work from first notice of loss to a reviewed outcome—and any later appeal.

Build purpose-built applications across claims, policy, documents, communications and payments. Give each participant a clear next task, while retaining the facts, evidence and authority behind each decision.

Follow the claimDiscuss your application
ONE CLAIM · CONNECTED HISTORYApplication
FROZIONExecution FabricGoverned from request to outcome
Original decision / D-147

What was known.
What was decided.

Policy context, evidence, reviewer, rationale and reported result stay linked.

Later · new evidence arrivesA linked review opens.

The new report and next responsibility join the history. The original decision remains available.

D-147 Original retainedR-147 Review open
One connected applicationClaimant → adjuster → decision → follow-through

Shared case context.
Views and actions scoped to each participant.

Retention and access follow the configured requirements
01 / Connect the work

The claim crosses systems.
Its context should travel with it.

A claim can move through portals, inboxes, adjusters, policy records and payment services before anyone can close it.

When the links live in people’s memory, each handoff becomes another request for documents, another status check or another attempt to reconstruct the file.

Claims system

Case and financial state

Claim identifiers, assignments, recorded decisions, reserves and claim status.

Policy administration

The relevant contract

Policy records, endorsements, terms and effective dates needed for the review.

Documents & evidence

Material behind the assessment

Loss reports, estimates, correspondence and the revisions actually reviewed.

CRM & communications

The participant relationship

Contact context, service requests, permitted messages and delivery results.

Payments & finance

The reported payment outcome

Payment instructions, recipient references, transaction status and reconciliation.

External services

Work beyond the carrier

Adjusters, brokers, TPAs and service partners through supported interfaces.

The application you compose on Frozion

Give the whole claim a defined operating process.

Connect participant experiences, case state, evidence requests, AI assistance, authorized decisions, durable waits and permitted system actions. Keep the existing systems of record authoritative.

Prompts can help initiate or prepare work. The application carries the procedure, responsibilities and completion criteria from one case to the next.

Explore composite applications
02 / Follow one claim

From first notice
to a reviewed, recorded outcome.

Follow a property claim through intake, evidence, human review and downstream results. Then explore missing evidence or a later submission.

Each case follows a defined process. The facts, permitted branches and outstanding responsibilities determine what happens next.

Property claim coordinationClaim C-147 / Policy P-147

Required evidence, authorized review and reported downstream results are available in this completed path.

01 / Receive & registerClaim registered

Turn the loss notification into a shared case.

A policyholder reports property damage. The application captures the notice, associates the policy and participant identities, and links the claim reference returned by the claims system. Registration does not itself establish coverage.

What people can do

The claimant sees the submitted information and next request. An authorized broker or service representative can follow the case within their assigned scope.

What the application carries

Validate required intake fields and identifiers, flag potential duplicates for review, and record the source-system response. Assign an owner and preserve the original submission.

Connected case record

C-147 · notice FNOL-147 · policy reference P-147 · claims-system acknowledgement · intake owner assigned

Next responsibility

Assemble the relevant policy context and identify the evidence needed for review.

02 / Assemble contextContext assembled

Put the relevant contract and facts beside the claim.

The case brings together the reported loss, policy version PV-7, endorsements, available documents and prior correspondence. Source times and effective dates remain visible to the reviewer.

What people can do

The adjuster can inspect what each source reports and identify gaps. Claimants and service partners see only the information needed for their tasks.

What the application carries

Resolve policy and claim identities. Retain the selected contract version, input records and calculation definitions. Flag missing, stale or conflicting context before it is used.

Connected case record

C-147 · policy context PV-7 · context package CP-147 r1 · source and effective dates retained

Next responsibility

Collect the required loss report and supporting material; make outstanding work explicit.

03 / Collect evidenceReview package ready

Keep evidence requests attached to the case.

The assigned adjuster’s report and supporting estimate arrive. The case owner checks that they belong to this claim and that the required review package is complete.

What people can do

The claimant can provide requested documents. The adjuster can respond to an assigned task. The case owner sees what arrived, what was checked and what remains unresolved.

What the application carries

Carry the case through document and human waits. Link each message and revision to its request; document presence alone does not establish authenticity or accuracy.

Connected case record

C-147 · report LR-147 r1 · estimate E-147 r1 · evidence set EV-147 r1 · required package checked

Next responsibility

Prepare a decision proposal from the applicable contract, checked evidence and defined calculation rules.

04 / Review & decideDecision recorded

See what was proposed—and what was decided.

In this case, an authorized reviewer approves settlement proposal SP-147 r1 for $18,400. The proposal identifies the claim, covered scope, recipient, amount and supporting rationale. The decision records the reviewed version.

What people can do

The reviewer inspects the relevant contract and evidence, corrects assumptions and approves or returns the proposal within their authority. AI assistance is not a coverage or payment decision.

What the application carries

Use defined rules for exact calculations and prerequisite checks. AI can summarize evidence or prepare a draft explanation. Bind the human decision to the proposal, context and authority actually reviewed.

Connected case record

C-147 · SP-147 r1 · $18,400 · EV-147 r1 · decision D-147 · reviewer and authority recorded

Next responsibility

Revalidate the approved proposal, recipient, current authority and required conditions before each consequential action.

05 / Act & reconcileResults confirmed

Follow the decision into the destination systems.

The configured process submits the approved payment and dispatches the reviewed explanation. In this completed path, the payment service reports payment completed and the communication service reports the notice sent.

What people can do

The case owner sees each operation and its reported status. The claimant receives the permitted explanation and payment status; a sent notice does not prove that it was read.

What the application carries

Check current permissions, proposal identity and relevant state before acting. Record payment and communication outcomes separately. Missing or ambiguous responses remain exceptions to reconcile.

Connected case record

C-147 · D-147 · payment PAY-147 reported completed · notice N-147 reported sent · separate operation references

Next responsibility

Confirm that required tasks and reported outcomes satisfy this case’s completion criteria.

06 / Retain & revisitOriginal case completed

Close the work with its decision history intact.

The original case is complete against its configured criteria. The submitted facts, policy context, evidence versions, proposal, reviewer decision and reported effects remain connected for permitted later review.

What people can do

The policyholder can see the permitted outcome. An authorized reviewer can inspect the original record if a question, new submission or appeal follows.

What the application carries

Decision-time context remains available under the configured retention requirements. A later review becomes linked work with its own inputs, authority, status and outcome.

Connected case record

C-147 completed · D-147 retained · PV-7 · EV-147 r1 · SP-147 r1 · PAY-147 and N-147 results

Next responsibility

Explore “New evidence after closure” to see how a linked review can open without rewriting the original decision.

1 / 6

Coverage terms, authority limits and settlement rules are defined for each application.

03 / Preserve decision-time context

Reopen the case.
Keep the original record.

A later appeal asks what was known and reviewed then. Today’s records may contain facts that did not exist at the time.

Retain the original context and add new evidence as linked review work. Compare the two without silently replacing the basis of the first decision.

Then / original recordRetained

Decision D-147

The record behind the original outcome.

Contract context
Policy PV-7 and relevant endorsements
Evidence reviewed
LR-147 r1, E-147 r1 and EV-147 r1
Proposal & decision
SP-147 r1 · $18,400 · authorized reviewer and rationale
Reported effects
Payment completed; explanation sent
Later / linked reviewOpen

Review R-147

New information with its own next task.

New submission
Additional damage report LR-147 r2
Relationship
Linked to C-147 and original decision D-147
Review responsibility
Assigned reviewer verifies the new material and determines the applicable process
Current outcome
No revised decision or additional payment authorized
A new review adds to the history

Keep source records, contract terms, execution-policy versions and model-assisted outputs distinguishable. The authorized reviewer determines which contract and requirements apply to the new review.

Reconstruct what was reviewed.

Inspect available source evidence, context versions, policy checks, human decisions and operation results together. Missing evidence remains visible, so you can distinguish a retained record from an incomplete history.

Provenance and evidence

Keep a new analysis separate.

A fresh model run or policy comparison is a new execution with its own inputs and version evidence. It can inform a review without being presented as the original reasoning or result.

Inspect behavior and replay

Control access over time.

Retaining history does not grant permanent access. Apply current authority and business scope when retrieving it, with retention and deletion requirements defined for the application.

Least-privilege architecture
04 / Experiences for every participant

One connected claim.
Different responsibilities and views.

Policyholders, brokers, adjusters, carrier teams, service partners and management need different ways to participate.

Compose the portal, task queue, review workbench or management view each role needs. Preserve claim, organization, delegated authority and purpose scope throughout the work.

Policyholders & brokers

Know what is needed next.

Submit a notice, answer a request, provide documents and see permitted status and explanations. An authorized broker can support the relevant policyholder.

Claim intake, requests and scoped status
Adjusters, TPAs & carrier teams

Work from the same case context.

Collect evidence, resolve exceptions, review proposals and follow system outcomes. Each role receives the tasks, documents and actions within its assignment.

Evidence tasks, review and operational handoffs
Partners & management

See the information needed to act.

Service partners see their assigned work. Managers have separately scoped views of waiting reasons, ownership and outcomes without access to the entire claim file.

Distinct service and management experiences
Conversations remain part of the work

A reply should advance the right task.

Supported portals, email and communication channels can feed the relevant claim and request. Keep internal fraud-review notes, unrelated claims and restricted evidence outside participant views that do not authorize them.

Compose participant experiencesCarry long-running workPrivate and hybrid deployment
05 / Extend the application pattern

Build around the work
your insurance teams need to complete.

Use the same application foundation across claims, underwriting, policy service and operational review.

Each application defines its own evidence, participant scope, decision authority and completion criteria. These are starting points, not prepackaged insurance products.

01 / Claims

Claims review and adjudication

Coordinate intake, documents, assessment, authorized decisions, communications and reported financial effects.

02 / Appeals

Appeals and disputes

Link the challenged decision, new submissions, assigned reviewers and subsequent outcomes while preserving the original record.

03 / Underwriting

An underwriting workbench

Bring submissions, entity data, risk indicators and supporting evidence into an authorized review and approval process.

04 / Policy service

Policy changes and servicing

Coordinate a requested change, required verification, permitted approvals, system updates and participant communications.

05 / Exceptions

Fraud and exception review

Assemble signals and relationships for investigation. Keep suspicion, established facts and human findings distinct.

06 / Assurance

Audit and decision reconstruction

Inspect available evidence and decision history within current access scope; surface gaps and retain the review outcome.

06 / Start with one complete application

Choose a claim process
you can take through to its outcome.

Start where document chasing, handoffs and reopened work already consume attention.

Define one claim type and a manageable set of participants and systems. Include the normal path and the exceptions that prevent real cases from finishing.

  1. 01

    Define the case and its finish.

    Agree the intake, evidence, human decisions, communications, payment conditions and completion criteria. Include missing evidence, changed proposals and unconfirmed results.

  2. 02

    Map sources, authority and waits.

    Identify authoritative records, supported APIs, participant scope, review roles and retention requirements. Define what must be rechecked after a wait.

  3. 03

    Prove the original and later review.

    Walk through a completed case, a paused case and a new-evidence or appeal path. Show what is retained, what changes and who owns the next action.

Maintain the application

Make the process, rules, participant screens, integrations and evidence relationships inspectable together. Assess a proposed change against relevant retained cases, define how in-flight work is handled and preserve the original version evidence.

Visual orchestration and contracts
Practical questions

Before the first claim.

The application coordinates work across existing systems through supported interfaces. Keep claims, contract and payment records authoritative in their designated systems; define which records and actions the Frozion application owns.

This example uses AI to assist with evidence preparation, extraction and explanations. Coverage, settlement and payment authority follow the configured rules and authorized review process. An AI-generated proposal is not itself a decision or approval.

The case retains received material and an assigned request, then waits. When the missing material arrives, check its relevance and the current requirements before progressing. A timeout or absent response does not silently approve the claim.

A linked review can retain new submissions, assigned responsibilities, applicable context and subsequent decisions. The original decision-time record remains distinguishable from the later review. The application must define its retention, access and deletion requirements.

Reconstruction uses the execution and evidence actually retained. A new model run, changed policy comparison or fresh retrieval is a separate execution; it does not overwrite the historical record or guarantee the same answer.

Record each operation identity and available response separately. An acknowledgement gap does not prove failure or make a retry safe. Reconcile with the destination through supported checks and keep the unresolved work visible.
From fragmented claim work to a connected application

Move today’s claim forward.
Keep tomorrow’s review grounded.

Bring one insurance process. Map its participants, systems, evidence and decisions into an application that carries the work through.

Discuss your applicationExplore all industries