Which claim should enter the intake workflow first?
Compare claims using severity, customer impact, coverage clarity, fraud risk, and estimated loss.
From business evidence to an explained recommendation
Enter comparable evidence
Edit the fictional samples using your own consistent measurements.
Choose your priorities
Use balanced priorities or generate AHP weights from pairwise judgments. Weights express importance, not option performance.
Review the tradeoffs
Run the comparison, inspect the ranking and API response, then change a value and rerun.
Compare your options
This demonstrates the published balanced intake model: lower severity, fraud risk, and estimated loss are preferred; higher customer impact and coverage clarity are preferred. It is not emergency triage, a coverage determination, or a settlement decision. Escalate urgent or safety-critical cases through your established process.
Samples are fictional and editable. Scores use 0–100, percentages use 0–100, and ratings use 1–5. Use a common currency for monetary values. The recommendation supports human review; no operational action is taken.
Understand the inputs
- Claim Severity Score: Overall severity of the reported loss based on damage, injury, complexity, and potential financial exposure. Lower values are preferred. Unit: Score.
- Customer Impact Score: Measures hardship, mobility impact, complaint sensitivity, or service urgency for the policyholder. Higher values are preferred. Unit: Score.
- Coverage Clarity Score: Measures how clearly the policy, endorsements, dates, and loss facts support coverage determination. Higher values are preferred. Unit: Score.
- Fraud Risk Score: Estimated likelihood that the claim contains suspicious indicators requiring special investigation. Lower values are preferred. Unit: Score.
- Estimated Loss Amount: Estimated total indemnity exposure for the claim before final adjudication. Lower values are preferred. Unit: Currency.