The worst week
of their year.
Prepared for.
A commercial claim starts on the worst day a business has had in years. Everything after that is a wait they cannot see into. This is a concept for making that wait legible — without a machine ever deciding a claim.
“Nobody buys insurance for the policy. They buy it for the week they have to use it.”
The premise of this conceptThe claim that has been open eleven days
A business has lodged a claim and heard nothing since the acknowledgement. They do not know whether an assessor has been assigned, whether their documents were enough, or whether they should be arranging their own repairs. The information exists. It has just never been assembled into an answer.
You are advertising for a customer lifecycle role. We also read your own site: of the five things a customer most wants to know before they buy, it answers two.
What happens now
The broker chases. The claims handler is across six files. The customer learns things by asking twice.
What it costs
A commercial claim handled opaquely is a renewal lost eleven months later, for reasons nobody writes down.
What the concept does
Assembles the state of the claim into something a person can send, and flags what is actually blocking it.
One claim. Four states of the same wait.
The status is “open” in every case. What the customer needs to hear is different every time.
A template sends the same thing to everyone and changes the name. What matters here is the case that should get something different — or nothing at all.
The rules beside each draft are placeholders. A pilot replaces them with your actual policies. We have not seen those, and this concept does not guess at them.
The line this never crosses
The whole risk in claims automation is a machine appearing to decide something. These checks exist to make that impossible.
Drafts are held against the Financial Markets Conduct Act fair-dealing provisions, the Conduct of Financial Institutions regime, the Fair Trading Act 1986, and the Privacy Act 2020.
Press run to see what it catches — and what it refuses to produce at all.
Where the open claims actually are
Illustrative and fictional. No production access is requested by this concept.
| Claim state | Volume | Prepared | Waiting on | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Progressing, nothing needed | — | Update, no action required | Nobody — closes itself | Ready to send |
| One document outstanding | — | Named the exact item | Customer | Awaiting approval |
| Specialist assessment queue | — | Honest explanation of the delay | Claims handler sign-off | Awaiting approval |
| Heading toward decline | — | Nothing drafted — file prepared | A person | Held — no draft |
| Assessor not yet assigned | — | Draft held | Internal allocation | Blocked internally |
| Broker-managed | — | Update prepared for the broker | Broker relationship owner | Awaiting approval |
Volumes are deliberately blank. This concept has no AIG data and does not estimate claim numbers.
Every draft carries its own working.
Not a log somebody has to go and find. The provenance travels with the work — what it read, which rules it held, who must approve it, and what it refused to do.
This matters most on the day someone asks why it said what it said.
- Artefact
- Claim update — one document outstanding
- Read
- Claim state fields (placeholder) · outstanding-items list (placeholder) · published product information
- Rules held
- Financial Markets Conduct Act fair-dealing provisions · CoFI regime · Fair Trading Act 1986 · Privacy Act 2020
- Refused
- No coverage position, settlement figure, settlement date or decline was communicated. Declines are never drafted.
- Approver
- A named person. Unsent until then.
- Prepared
- —
- Reference
- —
What this will never do
It does not send. It prepares, and a named person sends. It does not publish to any channel, commit spend, move money, or make a decision that belongs to a person. It does not pretend to be a person — every draft says it was prepared by a machine and approved by a human.
No production access is requested by this concept.
Scope
One claim type, one segment. Six weeks. Not assessment, not coverage, not declines.
Access
Claim state fields and your outstanding-items taxonomy. No policy documents. No customer records. No assessment reports.
Scorecard
Updates sent without rewrite. Chase calls and broker chases that did not happen. Claims where a person agreed the concept correctly refused to draft. One claims lead’s answer to “would you put your name on this?”
Fail any line of the scorecard and we change the design or stop.
Pick a verb.
Not “book a demo”. Any of these is a real next step, and the third is a perfectly good answer.
What is the one constraint we have got wrong?
Every concept is built from the outside. There is always something about how AIG actually runs that we could not see. One line is enough.
Opens your mail app to assembl@assembl.co.nz. Nothing is collected by this page.