Can AI process a case file and leave a record of why it decided what it decided?
That record is the whole point. A file agent is only worth deploying if every conclusion links back to the page it came from and the rule it applied. That is what a person has to defend afterwards.
Description
An agent that reads a full case file (dozens of documents, scans and forms), extracts what matters, checks it against internal policy and proposes a resolution, every conclusion linked to its source.
The problem
Each file is a folder of documents in different formats, some scanned, and the criterion applied depends on who picked it up that morning. Extraction is manual. When someone appeals, reconstructing the reasoning means reading the whole thing again.
How we solve it
The policy and the resolution history sit in RenBase behind access control, so the agent applies this company's criterion and not a generic one. Every conclusion points at the page it came from and the rule it applied. RenLayer keeps the trail intact, which turns an appeal into a lookup instead of an investigation.
What it returns
The criterion becomes consistent across files and across people, and an appeal gets answered with the record of the decision instead of a reconstruction.
KPIs to track
What to measure to know whether this is working. We define the metrics with you before starting, chosen so that it is hard to look good without having done well.
- Conclusions linked to their source
- Every one should point at the page it came from and the rule it applied.
- Agreement between reviewers
- Measured before and after: whether the criterion settled or just moved.
- Processing time per file
- From intake to proposed resolution, with the human confirmation included.
- Appeals upheld
- On files processed with the agent, against the previous baseline. Faster and more often overturned is not an improvement.
Contact
Does your case look like one of these? That is the best way to start the conversation.
Talk to us