More compliant: deterministic decisions, fully auditable

The same letter should always get the same answer, and a reviewer should always be able to see why. Rules deliver both. A model delivers neither.

One letter, processed three times, then asked why

LogiClaimRules decide
Run 1 · SameDCA acknowledged
Run 2 · SameDCA acknowledged
Run 3 · SameDCA acknowledged
Asked why?The exact phrase, evidence and rule, with the full trace
AI modelProbability decides
Run 1DCA acknowledged
Run 2 · ChangedAcknowledgement
Run 3DCA acknowledged
Asked why?"Classified with high confidence"

Same letter, different answer: the model changed its mind on run 2.

Side by side

LogiClaim rulesAI model
Same letter, same outcome Every time Most of the time
A reason for each decision Phrase, evidence and rule A confidence score
Effect of a change Exactly what you changed Unclear after a retrain
Reproducible on request Yes, from the trace Not reliably
Items it cannot prove Sent to a person Filed on a probability

What a file review asks

The question a file review asksWhy was this claim recorded as DCA acknowledged?
LogiClaim's answerThe lender's letter of 14 September contains "was subject to a discretionary commission arrangement", a phrase configured against Lender - Acknowledgement › DCA for that lender. The letter was linked to the claim on the client reference, corroborated by the client's identity. The full trace is attached to the item.
A model's answerThe item was classified as DCA acknowledged with high confidence.

Reach out

Want to handle more post with less admin?

Book free LogiClaim demo