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
InsuranceInsurance operations
Create an underwriting submission workbench
Underwriters receive inconsistent submissions and must locate the same information across emails and attachments. Valuable time is spent preparing a file before appetite, exposure, or referral questions can be assessed.
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.
Organize the submission and extract evidence with source references.
Check completeness against product and appetite requirements.
Prepare a review summary and referral queue for an underwriter to decide the next action.
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.
Cortex AI
Agent workflow: assemble evidence, assist with drafting and coordination, and apply configured permissions, evaluation, approval, and monitoring controls.
GeneData
Data foundation: connect approved sources, prepare governed datasets, track lineage and quality, and support repeatable analysis and reporting.
VALUE TO MEASURE
Where ROI can come from.
Reduce non-decision preparation work and improve response time. Evaluate conversion and portfolio quality separately from handling savings, using matched submission cohorts and adequate observation periods.
Track these measures against your baseline.
- Preparation minutes per submission
- Time to first underwriting response
- Missing evidence and referral rework
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
- A single product and broker channel, measured against recent submissions of similar complexity.
- Data and integration needs
- Submission documents, appetite rules, exposure fields, prior correspondence, and authority limits.
- Review and control requirements
- Underwriters retain authority over terms and binding; uncertain or conflicting evidence is surfaced rather than silently inferred.
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