Incident and claims evidence
An incident record should help a reviewer reconstruct the event while preserving uncertainty. Begin with what happened to whom, when, and through which workflow. Then collect the evidence that can establish or challenge each part of the account. STABLE
Minimum evidence packet
Section titled “Minimum evidence packet”- Workflow and intended use; operator, vendor, and downstream responsibilities.
- Relevant model, tool, policy, retrieval, configuration, and release identifiers.
- Event timeline, request/action identifiers, retries, and decision records.
- Approval context, reviewer authority, exceptions, and escalation history.
- Observed effects, affected parties, claimed harm, and containment actions.
- Integrity verification, signer and witness information where present.
- Mediation scope, denominator provenance, missing records, and retention gaps.
- Access controls and a way for authorised reviewers to obtain supporting material.
This is a proposed pilot checklist. It is not a compulsory claims form, an assurance certification, or a substitute for policy-specific notice requirements. STABLE
Keep four questions separate
Section titled “Keep four questions separate”| Question | Who must assess it? |
|---|---|
| Is this record authentic and intact? | Evidence verifier under the declared trust model |
| Does it describe the relevant action accurately? | Technical investigator with corroborating observations |
| Did that action cause the alleged harm? | Relevant investigators, experts, and legal process |
| Is the loss covered and payable? | Insurer and authorised claims handlers under the policy and law |
An authenticated record can still contain an inaccurate assertion. The absence of a record can be important without establishing fault. Evidence of control execution can support investigation without proving reasonable care, admissibility, coverage, or causation. STABLE
Fictional case: clinical reliance
Section titled “Fictional case: clinical reliance”A read-only assistant generated a summary that omitted a warning. A clinician acted on the summary. The assistant did not alter the health record, yet its output may have influenced care. Collect source-access scope, output versions, review records, the decision timeline, and clinical outcome evidence. Do not infer clinical correctness from permission checks or determine coverage from the technology label. STABLE
Field drill
Section titled “Field drill”Explain what Glacis can supply in a claims conversation without taking over the insurer’s coverage decision. A strong answer offers scoped evidence, verification, and known gaps, then identifies who makes each judgement.
→ The Lloyd’s market conversation
Drill this page →47 bank questions stand behind what you just read. Check it while it’s warm.