Match a claim to the unit that was built, read coverage against the policy in force, group repeat failures and route safety signals — a warranty administrator decides coverage and cause.
Take the claim, the dealer or customer narrative, the coded parts and the labour lines as submitted.
02
Pull the unit's build record — serial, plant, build date, option content and service history.
Reason
03
Match the claim to the unit that was actually built, not to the nominal bill of materials.
04
Read coverage against the policy version and the market terms in force for that unit.
05
Group claims sharing a failure signature across build dates, plants, suppliers and option content.
Decide
06
Route anything with a safety signature to product safety on arrival, before any coverage step.
07
Hold claims the build record, the narrative or the policy version does not settle.
Out
08
Assemble the technical-review pack — unit, narrative, matched cohort, part history and prior claims.
09
Prepare a supplier-recovery file where the evidence points at a bought part, for a person to send.
→Product statement
The agent triages, matches and assembles. Coverage, cause and any field action are decided by the people your process names, and a claim carrying a safety signature leaves the cost path on arrival.
Example workflow
One claim, end to end
AgentHuman
1Claim receivedA dealer or distributor portal, a service report, a field claim or a customer contact
2Unit identifiedSerial, plant and build date, then option content, prior claims, campaigns run and service history
3Safety signature screenedFire, heat, injury, loss of control or unintended movement — routed to product safety before anything else
4Coverage read and cohort matchedPolicy version and market terms in force, duplicates and resubmissions marked, same-signature claims grouped
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run without a person in the loop — matching, the safety screen, the coverage reading and the grouping all finish before anyone is asked to decide. A safety signature ends that stretch on the spot.
5DecisionSplits on confidence and on whether the record settles the coverage question
Record settles it
Reaches the administrator with the evidence attached.
Record does not settle it
Held for a warranty engineer to work.
Warranty administrator or engineer
Reads the claim against the build record, the terms in force and the matched cohort, then decides coverage and cause.
Decide coverage · Correct · Send to technical review
Decided — handed back▼
6Pack assembled and filedWritten to the warranty system only where access and procedure allow; the coverage field stays empty
7Outcome evaluatedAdministrator agreement, build-match accuracy, duplicate catches and cohorts against confirmed field actions
Safety exit
A safety signature leaves this lane at stage 3, whatever the coverage reading says.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Approving, denying or paying a claim.
Deciding the cause of a field failure.
Deciding that a field pattern is a defect.
Scoping, starting or announcing a field action.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Match a claim to the unit's build record, option content and service history.
✓Read coverage against the policy version and the market terms in force.
✓Group claims sharing a signature, and mark duplicates and resubmissions.
✓Route safety signatures on arrival and assemble the pack for a person to decide.
The agent writes the triage record and the routing flag. The coverage decision and the cause are not its to write.
Reporting to a product-safety regulator.
Charging a supplier or raising a debit note.
Changing coverage rules, terms or thresholds.
Setting the affected population for a campaign.
Example output
One claim on one unit, annotated
Everything the agent puts forward is attached to the unit it was built as and the terms in force when it went into service.
Triage output · single claimIllustrative example
Claim as submitted
Dealer narrative
Unit
Triaged as
Confidence
Coverage
Dealer warranty claim
Burning smell, no drive
Serial 8842-C
Safety signature — routed out
81%
Not decided by the agent
As receivedThe claim, the unit it names and the words the dealer typed — read from the submission and the build record.
Evidence usedBuild record, plant 2Same-signature cohortPrior claims, same unit
Why it left the cost pathHeat and a loss of drive is a product-safety question, not a coverage one.
ActionDecide coverageCorrectSend to technical review
What the score decidesConfidence ranks the queue, never whether a safety signature is escalated.
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 claim receivedDealer portal, field report or customer contact
03Match & read
Work to your own build records
Use the unit's build record and option content, the policy version in force for that market, and the campaigns already run on it.
01Approved path
Give the administrator the whole unit
The build record, the option content, prior claims and the matched cohort arrive with the claim, so the decision starts from the unit that was built.
02Human review
Send the unsettled, route the unsafe
Claims the record does not settle reach an engineer, and anything reading as a safety matter goes to product safety whatever the cost path would have said.
04Build an evidence trail
Retain the claim, the narrative, the build record read, the policy version, the cohort, the confidence and the decision a person made — on both paths.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six layers between the model and a coverage decision
Each control wraps the one inside it. A triage clears every layer before an administrator sees it, and the safety route runs before any of the cost logic.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defenceInward → L1 · closest to the model
L6Rollback / safe modeReturn triage to your existing claims queue if evaluation signals degrade.Roll back
L5TraceabilityRecord the claim, narrative, build record, policy version, cohort and decision.Record
L4Administrator gateCoverage, cause, supplier recovery and field action stay with the people who own them.Gate
L3Safety-signal routeA safety signature leaves the cost path on arrival, never gated by a confidence score.Escalate
L2Policy-version checkCoverage is read from the version and market terms in force for that unit, or not at all.Pin
L1Build-record matchA claim that cannot be tied to a unit's actual build and options is not triaged on.Verify
Model coreTriage produced — unit match, coverage reading, duplicate check, matched cohort and confidence
L1 – L2Keep the unit and the terms right
L3Takes safety out of the cost path
L4 – L5Keep the decision with a person, trail intact
L6Pulls automation back when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the whole triage — not only the coverage it reads.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the pack the administrator opens
Depth of coverage ▼
E1Final-output evaluationDid the triage agree with what the administrator decided?
E2Step-level evaluationDid it read the right build record, options and policy version?
E3Tool evaluationDoes the pack tie back to the exact unit, claim and part lot?
E4Emerging-pattern recallWere the cohorts it raised the ones that became field actions?
E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across model year, plant and market?
E6Business outcomeWhat was reopened, re-coded, double-counted or recovered in error?
Floor — the coverage and cause a person decides
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes plotted against the five stages of the agent lifecycle. None of them decides coverage or cause — the administrator's reading, the technical review and your product-safety process are the controls that stop them. If one gets through, the claim, the unit, the policy version and the cohort held in the record are what the re-review, the customer notification and the report to your safety owner are built from.
Agent lifecycleDirection of processing →
01 · Retrieval2 modes
WC-01
Matched to the wrong build
Option content the unit never carried is read onto the claim.
WC-02
Superseded or wrong-market terms
Coverage read from a policy version that never applied to that unit.
Stage gathersThe claim, the narrative, the build record and the terms
02 · Reasoning2 modes
WC-03
Safety pattern read as cost
A failure signature is grouped as a warranty issue and never escalated.
WC-04
Coded to a part that did not fail
The dealer's words point the cohort at the wrong causal part.
Stage groupsThe coverage reading, the duplicates and the cohort
03 · Record / file1 mode
WC-05
Resubmission filed as a new claim
One repeat visit becomes two incidents in the same cohort.
Stage filesThe triage record, written to the warranty system
04 · Output1 mode
WC-06
Recovery aimed at the wrong supplier
A recovery file is built on a part the supplier did not cause.
Stage returnsThe pack the administrator and the engineer read
05 · Change / Version1 mode
WC-07
Recent build compared too early
A new build reads clean because its claims have not arrived yet.
Stage tracksModel, rule, policy-version and build changes
Sev-1 · a safety pattern stays on the cost pathSev-2 · decided on the wrong unit or termsSev-3 · the cohort is wrong and misleads
Claims arrive months after a unit ships, so last quarter's build carries fewer than it will end up with. A low-volume variant may hold too few to say anything at all. 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
Recent builds, immature claims
8.0%
3.8×
Review
Low-volume option variants
5.7%
2.7×
Review
Sparse dealer narratives
4.0%
1.9×
Watch
Mature line, settled claims
1.7%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: administrator-disagreement-rate lift vs. mature-line baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks 2.0×2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
The cohort that became a field action is the answer key
Every claim an administrator re-decided, and every pattern a technical review confirmed, is scored again against what the agent said at the time.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Administrator disagreement, reopened claims, or a signature nobody raised until the field action.
02Diagnose
Separated into build-record match, policy version, coded part, duplicate handling and cohort maturity.
03Improve
Match keys, grouping rules and coverage logic change under your quality change control, with a named approver.
04Verify
Re-scored on stored claims from that model year and plant, including the cohort that was raised too late.
05Learn
The missed signature is kept as a standing case, and the delay itself goes to your emerging-issue review.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Nothing in this loop moves a reporting clock — a pattern that looks like a defect goes to the people who own product safety when it is seen, not when the next release is verified.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, records and terms, triage and grouping, evaluation, integration, then supervised running and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Claims-triage discovery and boundaries.
02Policy versions and market-terms mapping.
03Build record, serial and option-content access.
04Claim intake and narrative normalisation.
05Unit matching and service-history linking.
06Safety-signature routing with product safety.
07Coverage reading against the terms in force.
08Duplicate and resubmission detection.
09Cohort grouping and emerging-pattern signals.
10Evaluation suite and confirmed field actions.
11Technical-review and supplier-recovery packs.
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 product line, one marketProductionProduction warranty-system integrationAdvancedMulti-market / multi-plant
Introduced at Pilot
Claims matched to the unit's build record✓✓✓
Coverage read against the terms in force✓✓✓
Safety-signature routing on arrival✓✓✓
Coverage and cause decided by a person✓✓✓
Baseline evaluation✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Duplicate and resubmission detection—✓✓
Cohort grouping and emerging-pattern signals—✓✓
Technical-review pack assembly—✓✓
Observability and evaluation—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Supplier-recovery file preparation——✓
Multi-market terms and enterprise controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on product lines and markets in scope, policy and terms complexity, warranty-system and build-record integrations, claim volume 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
01Your warranty policy versions and the market terms behind them→Policy versions and market-terms mappingWeek 1
02Access to build records — serial, plant, build date and option content→Build record, serial and option-content accessWeek 2
03A year of claims with the dealer narratives as they were typed→Claim intake, narrative normalisation and the triage baselineWeek 2
04How a safety concern reaches your product-safety people today→Safety-signature routing, agreed with the people who own itWeek 3
05Claims your administrators re-coded, reopened or paid twice→Duplicate and resubmission detection, and coverage evaluationWeek 4
06The field actions you have run, with the claims that preceded them→Evaluation suite, emerging-pattern recall and failure-mode testingWeek 4
07Named administrators, a warranty engineer and your product-safety owner→Technical-review and supplier-recovery packs, then supervised runningWeeks 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. Week 5 carries both the held-out field actions and the first packs your administrators decide from.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Claims-triage discovery, policy versions and market termsW2Build-record and option-content access, then claim intakeW3Unit matching, coverage reading and safety-signature routingW4Evaluation suite, emerging-pattern recall and duplicate detectionW5Held-out field actions, first packs and targeted correctionsW6Your administrators decide from the pack, then Agent Care starts
Reading the bandSafety-signature routing is built in week 3 with the people who own product safety — before any claim is triaged for cost in week 5.
At the end of W6Claims have run alongside your existing queue and been decided by the administrators who own coverage, with every safety signature going where it goes today, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Manufacturing AI agent
Build a claims-triage agent around your own warranty data.
Show us one product line, the policy versions and market terms behind it, and a year of claims with the dealer narratives as they were typed. We'll match those claims to your own build records, report which cohorts we would have raised before the field actions you actually ran, and mark every claim we would have taken off the cost path.
