Forensic Claim-Record Analysis · Ontario

The record already contains the case.
We find it.

One forensic pass over an entire insurance claim record. Contradictions between what was said and what was done. Unexplained delays. Shifting positions. Withheld documents. Every finding anchored to the exact source page — receipts, not faith.

Position Reversal · Detected Sample · Synthetic Data
REC-000041Adjuster Letter · Day 12

“Coverage for the loss has been confirmed and your file is proceeding to appraisal.”

REC-002317Adjuster Letter · Day 214

“Please be advised that coverage was never confirmed and remains under investigation.”

CONTRADICTION · SAME FILE · 202 DAYS APART · BOTH PAGES CITED
ILLUSTRATIVE EXCERPT — FICTIONAL PARTIES COUNSEL-VERIFIED BEFORE DELIVERY

General-purpose legal AI drafts documents. Fault Audit cross-examines the record. Purpose-built for one job — forensic analysis of insurance claim files — and engineered to do that one job at a depth a general tool structurally cannot.

222K+
Lines of Custom Logic & Tests
1.6 : 1
Test-to-Code Ratio
72
Forensic Detection Modules
4,000+
Passing Regression Tests
Live in Production

Two verticals. Real files.
Source-anchored drafts.

This is not a demo reel. The engine has run end-to-end on live Ontario claim files, producing source-anchored draft artifacts for counsel review — one of them detailed below.

Vertical 01 · Live

Title Insurance Defect Claims

Full forensic runs over title-defect claim records — denial reasoning traced against the insurer's own file, document by document, with a chronological evidence ledger and withheld-documents schedule delivered as counsel-ready drafts.

Vertical 02 · Live

Auto & Accident Benefits

Deep analysis of auto and accident-benefits claim files — position shifts, unexplained silence windows, and correspondence-log gaps surfaced from the record itself, each anchored to its source page.

ONE SHARED ENGINE · INSULATED ARCHITECTURE · EXTENDS TO ANY INSURANCE LINE


Representative Scenario · Composite

What one recon pass surfaces.
On a file a firm would have declined.

A composite illustration — not a single client, not an identifiable matter. It shows the categories of finding the engine surfaces on a multi-thousand-page auto claim record: exactly the sub-$20k file a firm turns away today, because assessing merit alone costs 30+ unpaid hours.

Before the engine
  • Thousands of pages of adjuster correspondence, call logs, and repair-shop email — unread.
  • 30+ unpaid hours needed just to learn whether a case existed.
  • Contradictions months and hundreds of pages apart, never surfaced side by side.
  • Merit unknown — so the file stays in the drawer.
The finding categories it detects
  • Coverage-position reversals — the same file taking two stances, both pages cited.
  • Silence gaps in the correspondence log — timestamped, quantified.
  • Verbal assurances contradicted by the written record.
  • Third-party instructions the adjuster log never reflected.
ARTIFACT
Draft chronological evidence ledger + exhibit references
Every material event in order, each beside its exact source-page citation.
Source-Anchored
ARTIFACT
Draft affidavit of documents + withheld-documents schedule
Including documents the insurer's own file references but never produced.
Counsel-Gated
OUTCOME
Days of page-by-page review → a single forensic pass
Counsel spends the reclaimed hours litigating, not reading.
Time Returned

The File, Before and After

Drawer files become
billable litigation.

Compliance platforms defend the institution. Fault Audit arms the counsel across the table.

With Fault Audit
  • A recon pass (Auto · $1,500 / Title · $2,500) answers the question — 100% credited into the full build
  • The whole record examined at once — contradictions surface side by side
  • Same record, same logic, every time — full chain-of-custody manifest
  • Every finding anchored to the exact source page — receipts, not faith
  • Every output cross-examined by a simulated opposing counsel before it ships
Without Fault Audit
  • 30+ unpaid hours just to learn if the case exists — so the file dies in a drawer
  • The contradiction on page 2,300 never meets the one on page 40
  • Same record, different read per reviewer — findings live in margin notes
  • Generic AI summaries that collapse the first time opposing counsel pushes back
  • Capacity grows only with headcount
Built to Survive Cross-Examination
Anchored

Nothing on faith

Every finding cites the exact source page it came from. If the engine cannot anchor a claim to the record, it says nothing at all.

Fails Closed

Silence over invention

The engine would rather emit no finding than manufacture one. Quantum and anything unverifiable fail closed to human review.

Adversarial

Pre-attacked before delivery

Every output faces a simulated opposing-counsel attack before it ships. What reaches counsel has already survived the cross.

The question is not whether the record
contains the case. It's who finds it first.

Or book a counsel walkthrough first.