{"slug":"policy-comparison-workspace","name":"Policy comparison workspace","category":"Insurance","customer":"Commercial brokers comparing renewal options","problem":"Policy differences hide across long documents.","value":"For commercial brokers comparing renewal options, turn policy wordings, schedules and broker-defined comparison fields into evidence-linked policy comparison. Address the recurring problem: policy differences hide across long documents. The value hypothesis is a more complete, reviewable deliverable with less repeated preparation; the pilot must establish whether that benefit is real.","format":"Structured comparison and clarification workspace","screens":"Key screens: Coverage matrix, clause evidence, broker notes. Use a side-by-side matrix with the same fields for every document or option. Clicking a value reveals its original passage. Highlight missing, different and uncertain items separately. Provide a clarification queue and reviewer annotations before exporting a decision pack. In this product, the first view is coverage matrix, followed by clause evidence and broker notes.","functionality":"1. Extract comparable terms. 2. Link source clauses. 3. Flag exclusions. 4. Distinguish missing wording. 5. Compare limits. 6. Preserve reviewer annotations.","workflow":"Define comparison fields, upload source versions or offers, extract candidate values, normalize only agreed units, inspect differences, resolve questions with reviewers, and export an evidence-linked comparison. Start with policy wordings, schedules and broker-defined comparison fields and finish with evidence-linked policy comparison.","ai":"Align document sections and extract proposed comparable fields. Deterministic checks handle units and arithmetic. Preserve original wording and label assumptions. Professional reviewers assess the meaning and significance of differences.","inputs":"Policy wordings, schedules and broker-defined comparison fields","deliverables":"Evidence-linked policy comparison","admin":"Document versions, field definitions, source references, reviewer corrections, unresolved questions, comparison history and exportable matrices.","mvp":"Begin with commercial brokers comparing renewal options and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: extract comparable terms; link source clauses. Provide operator assistance for the third module: flag exclusions. Deliver evidence-linked policy comparison through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.","expansion":"After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: distinguish missing wording; compare limits; preserve reviewer annotations. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.","usp":"Every comparison field retains its original wording and location.","defensibility":"A niche comparison schema, reviewed extraction examples and clear handling of the differences that matter to a specific buyer. For this solution, build around every comparison field retains its original wording and location. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.","alternatives":"Spreadsheet comparisons, professional reviewers, document diff tools and manual quote or contract review. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: every comparison field retains its original wording and location. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.","revenue":"Test USD 300-1,500 for one bounded comparison package, then USD 150-600 monthly for recurring volume with review limits. Complex expert interpretation is separately priced. Figures are hypotheses.","costs":"Document parsing, field alignment, source verification, expert interpretation, clarification rounds and changing document formats.","integrations":"Broker-approved policy documents, case records and carrier requirements. Document repositories, procurement or contract records and spreadsheet exports. Preserve originals and avoid writing back interpretations without approval. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.","dependencies":"Document alignment, field provenance, unit normalization, missing-value handling and reviewer correction. Similar-looking documents may contain materially different terms.","pilot":"Compare a known set already reviewed by a domain expert. Check meaningful differences, false alarms and missing fields. Measure reviewer time including corrections rather than extraction speed alone. For this solution, use policy wordings, schedules and broker-defined comparison fields and evaluate evidence-linked policy comparison. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for broker correction rate, comparison time. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.","plan30":"Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: commercial brokers comparing renewal options. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: a side-by-side policy wording demonstration. Week 3: present it through specialist broker communities and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot. Week 4: review broker correction rate, comparison time, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.","metrics":"Broker correction rate, comparison time","channels":"Specialist broker communities","leadMagnet":"A side-by-side policy wording demonstration","message":"Policy comparison workspace for commercial brokers comparing renewal options. Every comparison field retains its original wording and location. Demonstrate the claim through a side-by-side policy wording demonstration.","retention":"Save reviewer-approved comparison fields and recurring document formats. Offer repeat comparisons and explicit updates when the source options change.","controls":"Separate document preparation from coverage, underwriting and claims decisions. Authorized professionals review policy meaning and customer commitments. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.","crossSector":"Operations; Customer Support","fn":["Extract comparable terms","Link source clauses","Flag exclusions","Distinguish missing wording","Compare limits","Preserve reviewer annotations"],"sc":{"opp":7,"pain":6,"feas":6,"now":8},"phases":[{"name":"MVP","scope":"One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: extract comparable terms; link source clauses. Manual review in the loop.","time":{"days":6,"label":"6 days"},"usd":10000},{"name":"Paid pilot","scope":"Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.","time":{"days":7,"label":"7 days"},"usd":13000},{"name":"Full product","scope":"Remaining modules: distinguish missing wording; compare limits; preserve reviewer annotations. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.","time":{"days":12,"label":"2 weeks"},"usd":17500}],"running":[{"stage":"MVP and paid pilot","note":"about 3 customers","hosting":[50,100],"ai":[50,100],"total":[100,200]},{"stage":"Full product","note":"about 50 customers","hosting":[190,380],"ai":[350,700],"total":[540,1080]}],"total":40500,"complexity":0.72,"days":25,"shot":true,"demo":true}