Compare the expiring policy with the renewal, or the issued policy with what was quoted, and report every difference with the wording behind it — a broker decides what it means.
Take both documents as they stand — the expiring policy or the quote, and the renewal or the policy the carrier issued.
02
Confirm the expiring side is the version that was in force, mid-term endorsements included, and stamp what was read.
Reason
03
Match every form, edition, endorsement and schedule on each side, and mark the wordings that fit no standard form.
04
Set clause against clause — limits, sub-limits, aggregates, deductibles, exclusions, conditions, definitions and schedules.
05
State what each difference would do if a claim were made, and quote both wordings so a reviewer can read them.
Decide
06
Where nothing has moved, the comparison still goes to a broker — an empty report is evidence of a check, not a result.
07
Anything unparsed, non-standard or restructured goes to a broker with the gap named rather than quietly closed.
Out
08
Hand over a difference report — each change, the clause on both sides, and the consequence written in claims terms.
09
Retain both documents as read, the editions matched, the differences found and the advice the broker gave the client.
→Product statement
The agent reports what changed and points at the wording. A qualified broker or underwriter decides what it means and advises the client — and a report with nothing on it is a statement about two documents, never a clean bill of health.
Example workflow
One renewal, end to end
AgentHuman
1Renewal receivedThe expiring policy or the quote on one side, the renewal or the issued policy on the other
2Versions confirmedEach side resolved to a policy, period and insured, with the expiring version checked against the endorsements issued mid-term
3Forms and editions matchedEvery form number, edition date, endorsement and schedule paired across the two documents, and non-standard wordings marked as such
4Clauses comparedLimits, sub-limits, aggregates, deductibles, exclusions, conditions and definitions set against each other, both wordings kept
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run without a person in the loop — matching, comparison and consequence-writing are finished before a broker opens the report. Nothing has been advised.
5DecisionSplits on whether both documents parsed and every difference carries its consequence
Both parsed, every difference annotated
Reaches the broker as a complete comparison.
Unreadable, non-standard or unmatched
Reaches the broker with the gap named.
Broker, account handler or underwriter
Reads the wording on both sides, decides which differences matter to this client, and advises them in their own words.
Accept · Correct · Query carrier
Checked — handed back▼
6Report handed to the brokerEach difference with the clause on both sides and what it changes at claim, and nothing marked as acceptable
7Outcome evaluatedDifference recall, false differences, consequence completeness, edition currency and review time, by document type and line
Reviewer corrections
Every difference a reviewer adds or strikes out is counted, in both directions.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Telling a client the cover is adequate.
Deciding which differences matter to this client.
Marking a difference acceptable, or closing it.
Signing the policy check or the renewal file.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Match forms, editions and endorsements on both sides.
✓Set clause against clause and quote both wordings.
✓State what each difference would change if a claim were made, in claims terms.
✓Name what it could not read, and every wording that fits no standard form.
Write actions run only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. Advising a client on cover, and signing the check, are not among them, on any tier, in any configuration.
Recommending one quoted alternative over another.
Reporting no differences without a broker reading it.
Feeding comparison output into pricing or retention.
Changing form libraries, edition data or comparison rules.
Example output
One renewal comparison, annotated
Every difference the agent reports is attached to the clause it came from, on both sides.
Comparison output · single renewalIllustrative example
Comparison
Cover
Documents read
Differences found
Confidence
Advice given
Expiring vs renewal
Commercial combined
Both, versioned
Four, all quoted
92%
None — broker's
As receivedThe expiring policy as it stood at expiry, and the renewal wording as the carrier issued it.
Wording citedForm edition, both sidesEndorsement scheduleSub-limit table, quoted
Why four, not oneOne endorsement changed edition, and a sub-limit inside it moved. Both are reported.
ActionAcceptCorrectQuery carrier
What the score decidesHow much of the wording a reviewer reads at source. Never that a change is acceptable.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every renewalFrom the renewal list, or a policy as issued
03Forms & editions
Read the clause, not the schedule
Form and edition dates on both sides, every endorsement and schedule attached to them, and the clause text itself — not the schedule page, and not last year's summary of it.
01Approved path
Read every page, every time
Both documents are read end to end at renewal volume, so the check does not thin out in the weeks when the most policies land at once.
02Human review
Say what a difference costs
Each change is reported with what it would do if a claim were made, so a broker weighs it rather than initialling a list of clause numbers.
04Build an evidence trail
Retain both documents as read, the editions matched, the differences reported, the ones a reviewer added or struck out, and who signed the check — on both paths.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Scanned wordings, bespoke endorsements and restructured schedules cluster in small commercial and non-standard business, so the clients least able to absorb an uncovered loss get the least reliable check. Nestack reports performance by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Scanned and faxed policies
6.9%
3.5×
Review
Manuscript and non-standard wordings
5.0%
2.5×
Review
Schedules restructured by the carrier
3.7%
1.9×
Watch
Repeat renewals, same form set
1.6%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: missed-difference lift vs. repeat-renewal baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Coverage gaps surface at claim, years after the check
The question is always the same: did the check miss the difference, or did it name one to a reviewer who had stopped reading?
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Difference recall or the false-difference rate moves in one document cohort.
02Diagnose
Traced to the version pinned, the edition matched, the comparison or the wording of the report.
03Improve
The form library, matching rule or report format is changed, re-approved by the broking lead and version-linked.
04Verify
Re-run against held-out renewals, including every difference a reviewer had to add.
05Learn
The missed difference becomes a regression case, with the clause from both sides kept.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Every cycle asks where the report went — a comparison used to pick which accounts are kept or priced is an underwriting input, proxy variables and all.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, document and form sourcing, comparison and consequence work, evaluation, review workflow, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Workflow discovery and automation-boundary definition.
02Document sources and version records.
03Broking, policy-admin and document APIs.
04Form library, edition data and currency checks.
05Non-standard and manuscript wordings.
06Clause comparison and schedule alignment.
07Consequence annotation in claims language.
08The no-advice constraint and output use limits.
09Broker review workflow and report-format sign-off.
10Recall, false-difference and cohort evaluation.
11Quote, slip and e-signature handover.
12Observability, deployment and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne line, one form setProductionProduction broking integrationAdvancedMulti-line / multi-market
Introduced at Pilot
Expiring-to-renewal comparison✓✓✓
Form and edition matching✓✓✓
Clause-level difference report✓✓✓
Consequence annotation✓✓✓
Baseline evaluation✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Quote-to-policy checking—✓✓
Non-standard and manuscript wordings—✓✓
False-difference control and noise budget—✓✓
Sign-off record and audit trail—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Renewal-season throughput——✓
Multi-market and enterprise controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on the lines and markets in scope, the form libraries and edition data available, broking-platform and document-store integrations, renewal volume, review workflow controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01The lines, markets and renewal types in scope→Workflow discovery and automation-boundary definitionWeek 1
02Where the expiring policy and its endorsements sit→Document sources and the expiring-version recordWeek 1
03Access to the broking platform and document store→Broking, policy-admin and document-store integrationWeek 2
04Your form library and the editions you hold→Form and edition matching, and non-standard wording handlingWeek 2
05Your written rule on what a check must report→Consequence annotation and the no-advice constraintWeek 3
06Real renewals, including differences you once missed→Evaluation suite, regression cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
07Named brokers and an account-handling lead→Review workflow, report format and the sign-off recordWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. The overlap in week 5 is where live renewals are checked twice, by the agent and by your own people.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Lines and renewal types in scope, and who signs a checkW2Broking, document-store and form-library integrationW3Version pinning, edition matching and clause comparisonW4Consequence annotation, evaluation suite and document-cohort slicesW5Live renewals checked twice, and the two difference lists comparedW6Production validation, sign-off record and Agent Care handover
Reading the bandWeek 5 runs the agent beside your own checkers on live renewals, not a retrospective sample. Each bar covers its own weeks only.
At the end of W6Brokers are working from difference reports, and every check carries the name of the person who signed it and the wording they were shown.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Insurance AI agent
Check the wording before you tell a client nothing changed.
Show us an expiring policy, the renewal beside it and the check your people do today. We'll run one comparison end to end, show you every difference and every false one it raised, and write down what the report may never say.
