What compliance architecture governs data handling?

AES-256 encryption at rest/transit, zero LLM retention policy, isolated environment, and full audit logging.

How does application completion pipeline handle multiple product lines?

Configured with product-specific document requirement schemas.

How was compliance assembly pipeline validated before live audit?

Tested against 3 historical audit cycles and validated against manually assembled packs.

What was impact on broker relationships following decision cycle improvement?

Submission volume increased within 60 days from top wholesale intermediaries.

Production Case Study · Finance🔒 NDA Protected

AI Insurance Claims Processing Platform

A UK specialty insurance carrier managing 12,000 active policies was averaging 14 days from application to decision while competitors operated at 4 days. Mirlo Systems deployed a compliant-aware AI operations platform that cut the decision cycle to 4.1 days and reduced CS call volume by 71%.

Schedule a Consultation

✦Enterprise-Grade Security✦AES-256 Encrypted Pipelines✦Zero-Downtime Migrations✦Sub-500ms Response Latency✦Agile Delivery Sprints✦CI/CD Infrastructure✦HIPAA & SOC2 Ready✦NDA-Protected Engagements✦Enterprise-Grade Security✦AES-256 Encrypted Pipelines✦Zero-Downtime Migrations✦Sub-500ms Response Latency✦Agile Delivery Sprints✦CI/CD Infrastructure✦HIPAA & SOC2 Ready✦NDA-Protected Engagements✦Enterprise-Grade Security✦AES-256 Encrypted Pipelines✦Zero-Downtime Migrations✦Sub-500ms Response Latency✦Agile Delivery Sprints✦CI/CD Infrastructure✦HIPAA & SOC2 Ready✦NDA-Protected Engagements

4.1 daysApplication Decision Cycle

71%CS Call Volume Reduction

4 hoursCompliance Audit Pack Assembly

AI Insurance Claims Automation — Decision Cycle Cut From 14 Days to 4.1 Days — Mirlo Systems

TL;DR

Executive Summary

01 · Business & Technical Challenge

The Challenge

Operational Friction

Application decision cycle averaged 14 days due to incomplete application packets (94% arrived missing documents). Competitors operated at 3-5 days, creating adverse selection. CS team applied 40% of capacity to status calls (£399K annual labor cost). Compliance audit pack assembly took 10-14 days.

Business Risks at Stake

Risk of adverse selection as faster competitors capture best risks from brokers
Risk of regulatory audit findings from manually assembled compliance documentation
Risk of applying generic AI in regulated context generating advice that creates FCA exposure

02 · Solution Architecture & Technical Execution

The Solution

Application Completion Pipeline sent automated document follow-up within 4 hours, cutting submission-to-complete time from 9.3 to 2.1 days and decision cycle from 14 to 4.1 days. FCA-compliant AI Claims Status Agent resolved 71% of CS calls. Compliance Audit Assembly Pipeline generated packs in 4 hours.

Technology Stack

Guidewire PolicyCenterGuidewire ClaimCenterAnthropic ClaudeTwilion8n Workflow AutomationSupabase

Engineering Capabilities Delivered

Application completion pipeline identifying missing documents and sending follow-up within 4 hours
AI claims and policy status agent grounded on live Guidewire data with FCA-compliant guardrails
Underwriting data extraction pre-populating Guidewire fields from submitted documents
Compliance documentation assembly pipeline generating audit-ready packs within 4 hours
Full audit log of all AI agent interactions maintained for FCA supervision review

Execution Approach

Compliance-First DiscoveryFCA-Aware Architecture BuildPhased Go-Live with Compliance ReviewSenior Underwriter Exception ReviewDedicated Handoff

03 · Business Value & Tangible Results

Measurable Outcomes

Verified Performance Results

Application decision cycle: Reduced from 14 days to 4.1 days — Underwriting operations report
CS inbound call volume: Reduced by 71% within first month — Telephony platform CDR data
Submission-to-complete-packet time: Reduced from 9.3 days to 2.1 days — Underwriting workflow log
Compliance documentation assembly: Reduced from 10-14 working days to 4 hours — Compliance process audit
CS labour cost applied to answerable queries: £399K annual cost eliminated — HR cost model

Before vs. After

Application decision cycle

Before14 days average

After4.1 days average

-71%

Submission-to-complete-packet time

Before9.3 days average

After2.1 days average

-77%

CS call volume

BeforeBaseline volume

After71% reduction

71% handled by AI

Compliance audit pack assembly

Before10-14 working days

AfterUnder 4 hours

-97%

Annual CS cost on answerable queries

Before£399,000

AfterEliminated

Redirected to complex interactions

Qualitative Gains

Zero manual administrative friction in routine processing pipelines.
Enhanced staff operational capacity redirected to high-value client interactions.
Full compliance and security audit trail maintained across all automated pipelines.

Stage 01
"We haven't started with AI yet"
Not sure where AI actually fits in your operation. We run a focused audit, show you exactly where it pays off, and build a prioritized roadmap - before you spend on anything.
AI Strategy & AdvisoryAuditRoadmap
Explore Advisory & Audit
Stage 02
"We tried AI and it didn't stick"
A chatbot or off-the-shelf tool didn't hold up in real operations. We rebuild it properly - integrated with your actual systems and tested against real workload, not a controlled test.
Custom AI DevelopmentIntegrationRebuild
Explore Custom AI Build
Stage 03
"AI is working, we want more of it"
One system is proving out. Now scale it - more coverage, more automation, better reporting - without breaking what's already working.
Workflow AutomationAI Reporting & AnalyticsScale
Explore Scaling & Automation

Built with explicit non-regulated guardrails covering factual administrative responses only. Regulated queries escalate to CS team.