AegisNow
Insurance, reinsurance, and actuarial operating context: connect policy, claims, financial, and modeling workflows within the agreed implementation scope.
Back to the use-case catalog
InsuranceAI actuarial
AI actuarial: scenario, capital, and asset-liability analysis
Risk and actuarial teams must reconcile assumptions and explain how different scenarios affect liabilities, assets, and capital. Manually assembled scenario packs slow decision-making and complicate traceability.
Solution blueprint: implementation is scoped with your team. The workflow below describes an engagement approach; it is not evidence of a completed customer deployment or a guaranteed return.
FROM PROBLEM TO PROCESS
How the workflow can improve.
Assemble approved cash-flow inputs, asset data, and scenario assumptions.
Orchestrate reproducible calculations using the organization’s validated models.
Compare sensitivities and prepare a traceable briefing for actuarial, risk, and finance review.
How Genellipse brings the platforms together.
Genellipse maps the business rules and source systems, configures the agreed capabilities, and validates the workflow with the people who will operate it. Existing systems and supported interfaces determine the integration approach.
GeneData
Data foundation: connect approved sources, prepare governed datasets, track lineage and quality, and support repeatable analysis and reporting.
Cortex AI
Agent workflow: assemble evidence, assist with drafting and coordination, and apply configured permissions, evaluation, approval, and monitoring controls.
VALUE TO MEASURE
Where ROI can come from.
Reduce the effort to run and explain scenarios while increasing the number of useful comparisons. Treat any capital or investment benefit as a separately validated outcome, not automatic savings from faster computation.
Track these measures against your baseline.
- Scenario turnaround time
- Manual preparation and reconciliation hours
- Percentage of runs with complete provenance
Agree definitions, data sources, and an observation period before the MVP. Compare similar work, include exception handling and quality review, and subtract implementation and ongoing operating costs.
Start with a focused, reviewable MVP.
- Suggested starting scope
- Reproduce an existing stress scenario and a small set of sensitivity runs before expanding scope.
- Data and integration needs
- Liability cash flows, asset positions, economic scenarios, model versions, and approved assumptions.
- Review and control requirements
- Qualified specialists validate models, dependencies, sensitivities, and limitations; governance determines which results may support decisions.
What Genellipse can deliver with your team.
A current-state workflow map, data and interface assessment, configured MVP, evaluation evidence, and a phased delivery recommendation. Agree the output, acceptance criteria, operating owner, and improvement measures before extending the scope.
BUILD YOUR BUSINESS CASE
Explore an illustrative ROI scenario.
Replace these example assumptions with your own baseline and validated MVP results. This calculator estimates the value of processing-time improvements; it does not predict a customer outcome.
ILLUSTRATIVE FIRST YEAR
- Capacity hours released annually
- 2,000
- Annual realized capacity value
- CA$60,000
- First-year total cost
- CA$44,000
- First-year net value
- CA$16,000
- First-year value ROI
- 36.4%
- Simple payback
- 6.7 months
Released capacity becomes cash savings only when spending is actually avoided. Otherwise, measure the value of agreed redeployment or additional output. The realization percentage must reflect that distinction.
Calculation method and assumptions
Annual hours = monthly volume × minutes saved per item × 12 ÷ 60. Annual realized value = annual hours × hourly cost × realization percentage. First-year cost = implementation cost + 12 × monthly operating cost.
First-year value ROI = (annual realized value − first-year cost) ÷ first-year cost. Payback = implementation cost ÷ monthly value after recurring costs, when that monthly value is positive.
The example assumes steady volume and immediate full operation. Include integration, licensing, AI usage, infrastructure, support, quality review, training, and change management in your costs. Model ramp-up separately before an investment decision. Currency selection changes the unit label; it does not convert amounts. Do not add the same benefit again as headcount savings, revenue, or avoided rework.
Bring us the workflow you want to improve.
Tell us about your source systems, current bottleneck, and the outcome you want to measure. Your selected use case will be added to an editable enquiry so we can start with the right context.
Discuss this use case