FRISS

Every product is a score, on an application in the seconds it takes to complete, on a claim at first notice and across its life, or at renewal, and investigation tooling works the cases those scores flag. Fully dedicated to fraud, risk and compliance for non life insurers since 2006, the company has no policy, claims or billing platform underneath that would remain without the scores.

An independent 2026 assessment confirms the claims pattern: the score flags, and a human investigator decides. At underwriting a published customer calls the screening results decisive in accepting, reviewing or rejecting live applications, and no floor beneath that is stated.

For a product screening every application and claim, the false positive rate decides how many honest customers are delayed or refused. No detection rate, false positive rate, validation method or observation period is published.

A customer reports savings per investigator rising from $550,000 to 2 million alongside $21 million saved in two years, a measure of effectiveness harder to flatter than a gross total. More than 300 implementations in over 45 countries back it, yet every customer statement is unattributed to a named insurer.

Four published principles commit to transparency, fairness, accountability and governance, and the stated purpose, that honest customers should not pay for others' fraud, shapes the product toward clearing trustworthy business quickly. Principles are not practice, and no model card, evaluation method or incident disclosure accompanies them.

Each screened application or claim yields a trustworthiness assessment of a named person, and learnings shared between underwriting and claims let a flag from one context follow someone into another. A Dutch company under European data protection law, it publishes no privacy content, retention period or statement of what a policyholder can request about a score.

The public surface has no trust center, named certification or attestation report. Mid market carriers, the company's target, have little procurement leverage to compel documents or capacity to assess them.

Published material names the EU AI Act and its enforcement timeline, and the products sit inside it, since insurance risk assessment and pricing are designated high risk. No conformity declaration, provider or deployer role or account of meeting oversight and accuracy obligations follows.

Underwriting is marketed as consistent and unbiased, and the company's own principles define fairness as treating everyone equally. No bias testing, disparate impact analysis or fairness metric supports that claim for a system scoring applicants in seconds.

An applicant scored high risk may be refused or repriced within seconds, and a flagged claimant faces investigation, with nothing published telling either that a model decided or offering a correction route. No terms, warranty or service level is published, leaving the honest customer the company says it protects without a remedy.

Whose models score applicants and what external data enriches them are both undisclosed. An analyst, not the vendor, reports that the cross carrier contributory network is smaller than the market leader's, the one input a detection vendor cannot build alone.

Integrations with the dominant claims core platform drive growth in the United States, by an independent account, putting screening where claims are handled. Investigation directors are reported to find the workflow interface easier to live with than enterprise alternatives, though no developer documentation or connector catalog is public.

Delivered as a service, the platform names no hosting provider, region or residency commitment. Screening insurers in dozens of countries from the Netherlands, with an Ohio presence, implies transatlantic processing that is nowhere described.

Vendor surfaces show no price or unit, though a 2026 buyer's assessment puts mid market subscriptions at roughly $300,000 to $1.5 million a year, an analyst estimate the vendor does not confirm. Whether volume means policies screened, claims screened or investigators seated is unknown, and each scales very differently.

Offices from the Netherlands and the United States to Latin America support coverage across underwriting at application and renewal, claims and investigation. Lines are property and casualty only, automotive is rated its strength, and an independent assessment places the company mid market.