Claims decisions require
their own system of record.

CyVine Ledger is the claims decision ledger — infrastructure that sits above your claims platform and AI tools to govern how decisions are made, record who made them, and preserve why.

If your name appears on a regulatory inquiry, market conduct exam, or litigation hold, the question will not be what your AI recommended. It will be whether a qualified human made the final decision — and whether you can prove it.

For VP Claims Operations, Heads of Claims, Compliance and Risk executives, and the CIOs who support them.

Existing systems were not designed
to account for decisions.

Every P&C carrier has a claims platform. Many now have AI tools producing recommendations. Neither was built to answer the questions that regulators, courts, and internal auditors actually ask.

  • Claims platforms manage workflow, assignments, and reserves. They record what happened to a claim. They do not record why a specific person made a specific decision at a specific point.
  • AI tools produce scores, recommendations, and flags. They do not record whether a human accepted, modified, or overrode their output — or the reasoning behind that choice.
  • Adjuster notes and documents capture unstructured fragments across systems. They cannot produce a coherent, chronological decision narrative under examination.
  • Compliance and audit systems enforce rules after the fact. They cannot govern the decision process as it occurs or attribute each step to a named owner.

The gap is not in any one of these systems. The gap is between them — where decisions are actually made, but nothing is recorded with the rigor the regulatory and legal environment now requires.

A claims decision ledger is the infrastructure that fills this gap. It is not an addition to your claims platform. It is not an AI governance overlay. It is a system of record for decisions themselves.

Four controls between AI output
and claim disposition.

CyVine Ledger does not replace your claims platform or automate payouts. It governs how decisions move from intake to disposition.

01

Registered Inputs

Every input entering the claim — FNOL, photos, estimates, policy data — is sourced, timestamped, and hashed at ingestion. The claim workspace is a controlled environment before any analysis begins.

02

AI Behind Glass

AI models produce recommendations inside a read-only advisory zone. Extracted fields, risk flags, and suggested actions are visible to decision-makers but cannot alter claim status, trigger payments, or commit data. AI informs. It does not act.

03

Decision Gates

Each claim passes through explicit checkpoints — coverage confirmation, estimate review, escalation or approval. Every gate requires a named human, a recorded action, and a reason code. No gate passes without accountability.

04

Append-Only Decision Timeline

Every input, AI suggestion, human decision, and override is written to a chronological, append-only ledger structured for tamper evidence. Decision records are cryptographically chained so the complete narrative for any claim can be reconstructed — by anyone, at any time, years after the fact.

Decisions. Accountability. The audit narrative.

Decision Ownership

Every claim decision is attributed to a named individual with a role, timestamp, and reason code. When a decision is questioned, the answer is structural — not dependent on someone's memory.

AI Containment

AI outputs are isolated in a read-only advisory layer. Models can inform decisions but cannot execute them. This separation is enforced architecturally, not by policy alone.

Audit-Ready Narratives

For any claim, the ledger produces a complete chronological record: what was received, what AI recommended, what was decided, by whom, and why. Ready for regulatory review without reconstruction effort.

Workflow Governance

Decision gates, escalation thresholds, and approval authorities are defined to match your operating procedures and enforced consistently across teams, geographies, and claim types.

Infrastructure pricing.
Not per-seat SaaS.

CyVine Ledger is decision infrastructure. It is priced as a platform, not a tool — reflecting the scope of what it governs.

Phase 1

Design Partner Pilot

Starting at ~$20,000
30–45 days, time-boxed

A paid, time-boxed pilot scoped to your claims operation. We map your decision workflow, identify governance gaps, and deliver a working proof of control configured to your claim types and authority structure. You own the output. No obligation to proceed to Phase 2.

See what a governed claims decision looks like.

A 20-minute conversation, operator to operator. We will walk through a contained claim scenario showing how inputs are registered, AI is contained to advisory, decision gates are enforced, and the full audit narrative is produced.

This is not a sales demo. No slides. No feature tour. Just the decision workflow, end to end.

About CyVine

CyVine is a small, founder-led company built by practitioners with direct experience in claims operations, insurance technology, and regulatory compliance. We are at an early stage — working with initial design partners to validate and refine the claims decision ledger in production-adjacent environments. We do not overstate our maturity. We are building serious infrastructure and engaging accordingly.

Security & Data Handling

CyVine Ledger is designed to store decision metadata — who decided, what action was taken, what reason was recorded, and what AI output was present. Underlying claim data (documents, photos, policyholder PII) is structured to remain in your existing systems. CyVine Ledger references it; it does not duplicate it.

The platform is built on US-hosted cloud infrastructure with encryption at rest and in transit. SOC 2 Type II certification is on our near-term roadmap but is not yet completed. Current security architecture and controls documentation is available under NDA for prospective design partners.

Deployment & Integration

CyVine Ledger is designed to operate alongside your existing claims platform and AI tooling via API-based integration. It is structured to ingest decision events — not to replace or intercept your core claims workflow. Integration scope and architecture are defined during the Design Partner pilot and tailored to your environment.