Define a material error as a defect capable of changing a substantive claims assessment, repair scope, valuation, required action or the reviewer’s ability to verify the file. Agree the definition before the pilot; do not let the supplier define accuracy after seeing the results.
A proposed severity rubric is:
| Severity | Illustrative defect | Proposed disposition |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Wrong claim association, cross-claim data exposure, fabricated evidence or unauthorised decision action | Stop the affected workflow and investigate |
| Material | Omitted affected area, unsupported quantity, duplicate work, consequential factual contradiction or missing support for a material assumption | Correct or escalate before acceptance |
| Minor | A non-substantive labelling or formatting defect that does not obstruct review | Handle under the agreed acceptance rule |
| Disputed judgement | Reasonable technical disagreement or ambiguous carrier instruction | Independent adjudication; do not automatically score as producer error |
These categories are desk recommendations, not statutory classifications.
Measure errors in both directions. Omitted work and unsupported additions both matter. Avoid netting positive and negative estimate differences into a deceptively small average.
Also distinguish a defect the reviewer caught from a defect that escaped acceptance. First-pass acceptance alone cannot show whether the review process is missing material problems.