The claim does not move in your core system. It moves between inboxes, portals and desks.
The document re-attached by hand for the fifth time. The claim that waits a week because it crossed a desk. The status update retyped into the portal after it was already typed into the core. Below is what that work looks like today, what it looks like once Silow has mapped it, and what it gives back — recorded inside your own perimeter, with no keystroke logging and no scoring of anyone.
The answer to the question your compliance officer is about to ask.
A tool that records how people work is exactly the tool a carrier holding PII and claims data is right to be suspicious of. So here are the boundaries first, in writing, before a single claim.
Zero-access mode: Silow runs air-gapped on-prem or inside your own VPC. Claims data, medical detail, and policyholder PII are processed in place. Silow does not receive, access or store your raw captures. This is the mode regulated carriers take — and the only mode in which we will ever say that sentence.
These are product constraints, not policy promises. We never record what an adjuster types, nothing is captured from camera or microphone, and private communications — with a claimant, a broker, or a colleague — are not read.
No productivity ranking, no performance evaluation, no automated decision about anyone's job. The unit of analysis is the process — in our AI-adoption report, not a single personal name appears in the underlying facts at all.
We never publish a blanket "Silow never sees your data." That is only true in zero-access mode — and that is the only place we will ever say it.
How the work looks today. How it looks after.
Seven processes, in the order we would take them. The left-hand column is what teams we recorded were observed doing. Rows tagged "Measured" carry a number that came out of that recorded work; rows tagged "Observed in the trace" are patterns seen in the recording without a standalone metric.
A first notice of loss arrives by phone, email, portal form or fax, and someone retypes it into the core system, opens a file number, and starts requesting the police report, the photos, the policy documents and the estimate — one email or portal upload at a time. The claim exists on paper before it exists as a workable file.
The intake drafts itself from what arrived: the file opened, the standard requests sent for review, the claim shaped before anyone reads it. A human reviews and confirms before anything reaches a claimant.
In a recorded team, one document was manually located and re-attached across two messengers on five separate occasions in three weeks, because no shared link for it existed. In a claims file that document is the police report, the estimate, the medical record, the proof of loss — and the request for it is retyped from scratch every time by someone who knows exactly what it will say.
Standard requests draft themselves from the language your desk already uses, with the right attachment already attached. The human reviews and sends. The file has one retrievable place, so it is never hunted for again.
A claim that needs a second desk — a specialist reviewer, a subrogation referral, a reply from a broker — waited a median of about seven days in the teams we recorded. Work one person could finish alone waited about one. Roughly two thirds of all waiting sat on the far side of a handoff. And it was not time zones: the least-overlapping pair still shared a quarter of the working day. The handoff between desks is simply not defined anywhere.
The handoff becomes an object rather than an assumption. Nothing sits silently, because "waiting on the other desk" is a state the claim is in, not a thing someone remembers to check.
The same fact — a claim moved to review, a payment issued, a document received — gets typed into the core system, then into the email to the broker, then into the policyholder portal, by the same person, from memory, three separate times.
The status update is drafted once and placed everywhere it needs to go; a human confirms anything a claimant or broker will see. The fact gets typed once.
Before a renewal or a new policy can be priced, someone assembles the file: prior claims history, loss runs, inspection notes, financials, the broker's submission — pulled from several systems into one binder, by the person you hired for their judgement about risk.
The packet is pre-assembled from what already exists across the team's tools, gaps flagged, ready to be underwritten. Silow never prices, accepts or declines a risk — it removes the assembly hour in front of the decision and leaves the decision exactly where it was.
A task is moving about 3% of the time it exists in the teams we recorded — the other ~97% it sits in someone's queue. In a claims or underwriting approval, that queue is where your cycle time actually lives, and it is invisible to every tool you own.
The queue becomes visible: what is waiting, on whom, since when, and what would unblock it. You are not making the adjuster faster. You are attacking the ~97%.
Counting AI by application name undercounted every person in a team we recorded, and one of them by around seven times — their assistant ran inside another tool, so the window reported the host's name. If you bought licences for the desk and your dashboard says nobody uses them, the dashboard is the thing most likely to be wrong.
Adoption measured from the work itself rather than from seats and logins — and, more usefully, the reason. An assistant nobody opens is almost never a model problem. It is that nobody mapped it onto a procedure anyone actually performs.
The teams behind these rows: a recorded team of under ten people in document-heavy client operations over five weeks, and a cross-border operations team we also recorded. Both anonymized. Rows tagged "Measured" carry a number from that work; rows tagged "Observed in the trace" are patterns seen in the recording without a standalone metric. Figures are rounded, and every one was computed before a model was allowed to write a sentence about it.
What an agent may touch, and what it may not.
In a business where a decision carries a payout and a promise to a claimant carries liability, this line is the product. So we draw it before anything is built.
- Assembling the file: documents collected, named to your convention, filed, and chased when missing.
- Drafting the request for the police report, the estimate or the medical record for the fortieth time this month.
- Pre-filling the underwriting or renewal packet from what already exists across the team's tools.
- Watching the queue: which claim or approval has been waiting, on whom, for how long.
- Producing the record of what moved, when and in what order — as a by-product, not a task.
- Pre-filling a status update from what already exists, ready for a human to confirm.
- Every coverage, settlement and fraud decision. Silow never decides coverage, settlement, or fraud.
- Every underwriting and pricing decision, and the risk judgement behind it.
- The exception nobody has seen before — which is most of what adjuster judgement is for.
- Every draft an agent produces is reviewed before it is sent. Nothing auto-sends to a claimant or a broker without review.
- Any decision about an employee. No ranking, no scoring, no automated judgement about a person.
Silow does not decide coverage, settlement or fraud. It removes the assembly work around the decision and leaves the decision — and the accountable adjuster or underwriter who signs it — exactly where it was.
Time, money, and the people you already have.
The rule for this section: not one invented percentage. Every figure is either measured in a recording or supplied by you — hours multiplied by your own loaded cost. A saving you cannot defend to an actuary is not a saving, it is a slide.
We do not quote you an industry percentage. Every candidate above gets scored in hours against your own recording and ranked by payback. The anchors we can already point at: a task moving about 3% of the time it exists, a median wait of around seven days each time work crosses a desk, and one document re-found and re-attached five times in three weeks.
The first is hours × your loaded cost — your rate, not a benchmark we invented. The second is the one nobody counts: the AI you already pay for and nobody opens. In a team we recorded, app-name telemetry undercounted AI use for every single person, so the licence decision was being made against a number that was simply wrong.
No new system to adopt, no data to move, no process change while we look — Silow runs on the tools the desk already uses, inside the perimeter you choose. The capacity comes back into the same team, doing the same job with the assembly work removed.
A task is moving about 3% of the time it exists. Making the adjuster faster optimises that 3%. Your cycle time lives in the other 97%.
From a procedure nobody has seen to a layer you own.
The agents are the visible part. The thing that makes them possible — and that keeps paying after they ship — is the record of how the operation actually works.
It is written down somewhere, and that document is wrong. The real procedure — the one performed at 09:00 on a Tuesday when the police report is missing — has never been observed, which is why every automation attempt starts with a workshop and a guess.
The real steps, from the recording, with the evidence attached. In one of our own recordings all thirty supporting quotes were checked back against the raw scenes they came from, not against a summary of them. Ranked by impact, effort, risk and payback.
File assembly, the document chase, the status draft. Each arrives as a specification an engineer can build from: the observed steps, the evidence, and the lines it must not cross. Human review stays in the loop by design.
The agents are consumers of something more valuable: a private, structured record of how your operation actually works, living inside your perimeter. Onboarding, audit, handover, and whatever you build next, on data only you own.
The office work nobody has a line item for.
These six categories are not our taxonomy — they came out of the report on an operations team we recorded, ranked from what that team was observed doing all day. They are not insurance-specific, which is rather the point: this is where the day goes in any document-and-approval business.
The recurring pull-assemble-format cycle across core, claims and reserving systems.
The chase: who owes what, who is blocked, what has gone quiet.
File, underwriting and renewal cases assembled into one reviewable object.
The pre-read and the post-meeting actions, drafted from what was actually said.
The submission and approval packs, rebuilt from scratch for every new file.
Onboarding, access requests, and the tool blockers that stall a whole day.
The part other vendors leave out.
Two of the hypotheses we most wanted to be true were killed by our own data. The vendor who tells you what their product cannot do is the one worth the second meeting.
The recording sees activity, never outcome. Whether the claim closed fairly, whether the renewal bound — that is not in the data. Join one column of your outcomes to our trace and it becomes provable. Until then, any ROI figure quoted at you by anyone is a guess.
A duplicate-work detector: about 44 recoverable minutes across nine people over five weeks, so there is no product. A meeting-ROI report: three quarters of what the metric called "meeting time" had no room attached. Both were cut before they ever reached a customer.
Numbers are computed before the model is allowed to write a sentence about them, so no figure gets invented. But a true number can still be attached to the wrong claim. We have caught exactly that twice — both times with human eyes, not with a check.
Days for legal. Weeks for the roadmap.
Before any recording, we agree the mode. For most carriers that is zero-access — on-prem or your own VPC — with the DPA, subprocessor list and boundaries on the table at the first security call. No keystroke logging, no microphone, no message content, no scoring of anyone. Those are product constraints, not policy promises.
Silow runs on the desk's existing machines and tools. No migration, no new system, no process change while we look — the point is to see the work as it actually is.
Scenes become tasks; tasks become the real procedure. Every opportunity scored by impact, effort, risk and payback against your own hours.
A specification, not a suggestion: the observed procedure, the evidence, the scenes behind it, and the boundaries it must not cross.
What you do with the capacity is yours.
If the honest answer for your desk turns out to be "there is not enough here to be worth it", we would rather find that in a two-week recording than sell you a year of it. Book a call and we will show you what the map looks like on your own tools, and what it would rank first.