Watch the security itself — which instrument sits on file, which institution holds it, whether that trustee is still eligible — and hold the record for the principal who answers the notice.
Assembles the security record, never the sufficiency
In
01
A claim is made, and § 387.307(e)(1) opens a business-day window to address its validity.
02
A trustee changes status, and § 387.307(c) dropped loan and finance companies on 16 January 2026.
Reason
03
A trust is tested, and § 387.307(b) asks it to liquidate to cash inside seven calendar days.
04
A payment leaves the instrument, and § 387.307(e) puts the FMCSA notice on the provider, not you.
05
A suspension notice is served, and § 387.307(e) allows error, restoration or claims satisfied.
Decide
06
A provider is proposed for suspension, and § 387.307(g) gives it a calendar-day window to contest.
07
A default goes uncured, and § 387.307(f) calls that insolvency — a bankruptcy filing alone is not.
Out
08
A forwarder files security, and 49 CFR 387.403(c) applies the same broker rules to it.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent assembles and tracks each window. A named person at the brokerage answers the notice and restores the security; the surety or financial institution notifies FMCSA.
Example workflow
One notice, security to answer
AgentHuman
1Notice or claim receivedFMCSA notices, trustee statements, surety correspondence and claim papers
2Security context assembledThe instrument filed, the institution holding it, the paragraph it answers to and when the window opened
3Security state draftedThe instrument, its assets, the claims and completeness
4Controls appliedEligibility checks, window checks, asset-quality checks and completeness confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is filed or contested at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the brokerage lane opens at the completeness gate.
5DecisionSplits at the completeness gate
Security intact
Goes to the brokerage principal to answer.
Anything short
Adds a compliance-desk read first.
Compliance review
The record is held with its claims, its windows and the instrument it rests on.
Answer · Append document · Send to compliance
Answered — by the brokerage principal, dated▼
6Security and registration records updatedOnly where write access and records policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedWindow coverage, trustee eligibility, desk corrections and what review found
Corrections
Each compliance-desk correction is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Contesting the validity of a claim on the bond.
Answering an FMCSA notice of proposed suspension.
Certifying that the security on file is sufficient.
Lodging a replacement instrument with FMCSA.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Hold the security instrument and its institution.
✓Time every claim against the response window that service opened.
✓Chase the trustee statement that never came, and log it.
✓Flag a trustee that § 387.307(c) will no longer treat as eligible.
Nothing is filed or contested except by a named person, inside the agreed boundaries.
Judging whether the security on file is enough.
Telling FMCSA a notification was sent in error.
Setting the instrument a brokerage is filed under.
Changes to security, surety or registration records.
Example output
One security record, annotated
Our carrier onboarding and fraud vetting agent pulls authority, insurance and registration facts on the carrier you are about to load; the registry that shows a carrier its standing shows yours, and this record is your own.
Security state · single instrumentIllustrative example
Instrument
Recorded as
Institution type
Source of record
Confidence
Held for
Trust fund, § 387.307(b)
Assets liquidate inside the test
Insured bank
Trustee statement, 3 August 2026
Held unanswered
The brokerage principal, by name
As receivedTaken from the trustee statement and the registration record — it reaches as far as those sources do.
What the record holdsInstrument on fileTrustee statementNotice, dated
Why no sufficiency call hereWhether the security suffices is a § 387.307 judgement, not a model output.
ActionAnswerAppend documentSend to compliance
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the record picks up a desk read before the principal sees it.
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 claimFrom the institution holding it
03Security
Where the record is used
Our freight audit and dispute agent works invoices against contract and tariff, and a claim on the bond is a different instrument on a different clock. Our rate negotiation agent stops at acceptance; the authority to broker at all is what this record protects.
01Approved path
Two sevens, measured apart
§ 387.307(b) sets a seven-calendar-day liquidation test on trust assets. The cure period in paragraph (e) runs in business days from written notice, and trade coverage has repeatedly merged the two.
02Human review
What was checked, and not found
No reinstatement standard or timeline appears in § 387.307, in the rule overview, in the FAQ or in the January 2026 industry presentation — the only cure described is the one taken before suspension, which is the reason never to arrive there. No enforcement statistics or suspension counts were published, and no extension beyond 16 January 2026 was found: verified to January 2026.
04Build an evidence trail
The instrument, the institution holding it and the person who answered stay on the record.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Surety and trust providersBMC-84 surety · BMC-85 trust Trustee statements
FMCSA registrationRegistration and authority records Notices and public postings
Brokerage systemsTMS · brokerage ledger Settlement and claim records
Agent
Broker financial responsibility
Reads the record Times each window Holds for the principal
CorrespondenceEmail · document store Claim papers and demands
A claim-level response-timeliness figure can read clean while claims answered late carry most of the corrections. Nestack reports the correction rate by claim type, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Claims answered late
9.6%
3.6×
Review
Trusts on an ineligible trustee
7.0%
2.6×
Review
Judgment-driven payments
4.3%
1.6×
Watch
Bonds with no claim on record
2.6%
1.0×
Normal
Bar: correction-rate lift vs. no-claim bond baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What an ineligible trustee costs
The loop shuts when the ineligible trustee is a regression case. That suite is what the next filing checked is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Correction rate rises on claims answered late.
02Diagnose
The letter that starts a clock nobody in the office recognised is read back until one cause remains.
03Improve
Any change goes out numbered, with the claims that caused it attached.
04Verify
One claim case still failing is enough to hold the release back.
05Learn
One case joins the suite, one line joins the security record.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next record is measured against a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, record assembly, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Security-record and automation-boundary discovery.
02Surety, trust and registration sources.
03Instrument-to-paragraph and claim-window mapping.
04Security document ingestion.
05Instrument, institution and claim binding.
06Completeness scoring and review routing.
07Principal response workflow.
08Registration and surety-system integration.
09Eligibility and claim cases.
10Guardrails and response controls.
11Security-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation 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 instrument, one security yearProductionProduction security workflowAdvancedMultiple instruments / entities
Introduced at Pilot
Record assembly to your paragraphs✓✓✓
Brokerage-principal release✓✓✓
Instrument-eligibility baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by claim—✓✓
Response workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Registration-record integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-entity registrations——✓
Cross-paragraph security packs——✓
Heavy claim traffic——✓
Multi-clock response controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, claim traffic, approval 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
01Your instruments and the institutions holding them→Filing mapping and claim captureWeek 1
02Representative surety, trust and notice records→Source binding, window logic and the eligibility baselineWeek 2
03Your registration issued under part 365→Instrument mapping, institution binding and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Surety, trust and notice-source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Notices you would not want unanswered→Claim cases and the evaluation runWeek 4
06What no security filing may guarantee→Completeness scoring, review routing, guardrails and release controlsWeek 3
07A named principal to answer the notice→Principal response workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Width here is worked time and not layout space, and so two of the bands must share the fifth week.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Security-record discovery, instrument mapping and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the instrument-eligibility baselineW3Record assembly, window logic and release controlsW4Evaluation suite, claim cases and failure-mode testingW5Registry integration, pilot notices and targeted correctionsW6One security year run under the brokerage principal, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach bar covers only the weeks its own work is named for. The fifth week carries two because the work does.
At the end of W6Once the security record validates, Agent Care assumes the agent.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Transportation AI agent
Build a broker security agent around the notice your principal has to answer.
Show us the instrument on file and the institution behind it. A named person at your brokerage answers the notice and restores the security; the provider notifies FMCSA. Since 16 January 2026 a loan or finance company is no longer an eligible trustee.
