Assess one defined workflow and one proposed operating model at a time. Do not combine one supplier’s security evidence with another supplier’s integration test to produce a composite score.
Record these details first:
| Assessment field | Your entry |
|---|---|
| Business unit and accountable sponsor | ___ |
| Loss types and complexity boundaries | ___ |
| States included | ___ |
| Inspection sources | ___ |
| Approximate monthly file volume | ___ |
| Current production route | ___ |
| Proposed route: improved in-house, managed production, estimate writing or automation | ___ |
| Assessment date and evidence reviewers | ___ |
As a starting scope, we recommend routine residential water or wind files, with complex losses, disputed coverage and specialist investigations separated explicitly. This is a proposed evaluation boundary, not a claim that those files are universally simple.
Bring together claims operations, technical QA, transformation, procurement, finance, technology, security and claims counsel. The budget owner and the team doing corrections should answer jointly.
How do you award points?
- Select one answer per question, worth 0, 1, 2 or 3 points.
- Choose the highest option whose entire description you can support.
- Score unknown as 0. Treat an unsupported assurance as no more than 1.
- A document can support 2 points where the option requires an approved design. Award 3 only where the stated test or operating evidence exists.
- Where evidence belongs to an older workflow, explain why it remains applicable. Otherwise select the lower option.
- Do not award automatic points because you are keeping production in-house or not using AI. Apply the equivalent controls to staff, software and internal hand-offs.
Keep evidence inside your approved environment. This public quiz does not require live claim files, policyholder photographs, addresses or claim identifiers. Record internal document references rather than uploading sensitive material.