Milliman

Judged on the products under the services hybrid rule, and the portfolio splits cleanly. Nodal is a pure model product: strip the machine learning and the natural language processing off it and nothing remains, since its entire function is extracting signal from adjuster notes and claim text to predict litigation, severity and excessive cost. The Curv predictive models, the fleet score, the attorney billing algorithms and the fraud detection platform are the same shape.

Against that, the firm also licenses actuarial computation platforms that carry no inference at all, and the largest business by far is consulting. B is the honest middle: several products where the model is the whole thing, inside a firm that is not an AI company.

Output is scores, alerts and high, medium and low bands presented to a claims department, with the firm's own actuaries, data scientists and claims professionals placed alongside implementation and continuing after it. That is the oxane shape, people staffed next to the model rather than positioned after it as an adjudication layer, which is why this is B rather than A. The specific gap: the product also offers to automate low risk claims so skilled staff can concentrate on complex ones, and nothing published states the threshold for that automation, what review the automated path receives, or what happens when a claim is banded wrongly. As elsewhere in this index, the automated disposal is the point where oversight matters most and is the one point left undescribed.

Three real signals: one product is described as an explainable platform with explainability named as a property rather than implied; models are tailored to each client's own data and claims can be rescored, so versioning and refit are working features; and the firm publishes research built on its own models, including comparative work on machine learning against traditional mortality models and a published analysis using the claims product finding a condition underreported in workers compensation.

Publishing findings from your own models is a transparency route almost nothing here uses. Held off A: no model documentation, performance figures, validation report or drift policy. And a model risk fact that belongs on this row rather than only on the liability row, because it concerns input quality rather than remedy: the statutory obligation to follow reasonable procedures for maximum possible accuracy has been the subject of both a federal enforcement action and class litigation alleging mixed files containing other people's records.

A quantified outcome is published, average cost savings of five to fifteen percent for companies deploying the claims product, and named client work exists including a public risk pool case study. The award for the claims product was chosen by an independent panel of senior industry experts rather than bought. Held at B on the standing shape: the quantified figure is aggregate and self reported, and the named references and the numbers never join.

Worth recording that an unusual independent corroboration exists for the consumer report product, since federal court filings name the carriers receiving its reports, which establishes the installed base from a source with no marketing interest.

The pooled corpus question again, and this is the most sensitive instance the ladder has produced. The claims product states that it tailors models to a client's own claim and text data while leveraging its own database as support, which means a shared reference corpus sits behind every client model, and nothing published says what enters it, whether contribution is optional, or whether one carrier's claim narratives improve models sold to another.

The underlying material is not trades or public filings but individuals' prescription histories, medical claims, adjuster narratives, medical notes and police reports. Compare the public filings corpus elsewhere in this pocket, which achieves peer comparison from data that is public by law and therefore raises none of this.

Unusually strong for this index because a statute supplies the posture rather than a policy page. The consumer report business collects under an authorisation the applicant signs, may release only for a permissible purpose, must give an individual free access to their own file within a statutory window, and appears on the federal consumer bureau's official list of consumer reporting companies with the access route published.

Held off A: no data processing detail, subprocessor list or residency statement is published, the data is among the most sensitive in this index, and the accuracy obligations attached to it have been contested in enforcement and in court, which is recorded on the model risk and liability rows.

No certification located in the vendor's own material during this pass, so nothing is credited, and the rule that an unverified credential earns nothing has to apply when it costs a grade. Banked check, cheap and specific and likely to move this: a firm handling protected health data at this scale for life underwriting almost certainly holds a service organisation control report and operates as a business associate under the health privacy statute. Look for a trust or security page on the consumer report business, which runs on a separate domain from the parent firm and was not fully swept here.

The consumer report business operates as a consumer reporting agency, a status defined by federal statute and supervised by the federal trade regulator and the consumer financial bureau, and it appears on the bureau's official published list of such companies.

Critically for consistency with how this index treats large groups, that status attaches to the graded product itself rather than to an adjacent business, which is the exact distinction that held the broking group in this pocket at C for licences that cover broking rather than software.

Held at B rather than A: this is a status acquired by operating in a regulated category with supervisory oversight, closer to programme enrolment than to a licence granted after examination, and the firm has been the subject of an enforcement action under that statute.

No fairness testing, no protected class analysis, no governance disclosure, and the exposure is as direct as any in this index. One model predicts whether a claimant is likely to litigate, which is a prediction about whether a person will assert their rights and correlates with income, geography, language and access to representation. This is the second instance of that exact mechanism in this pocket.

A second product line scores insurability from prescription and medical claim history, which tracks health status and disability by construction and includes mental health prescribing, since the firm's own published research uses that data to study depression. Two of the highest stakes inferences in the index, and silence on both.

The first grade above C on this axis anywhere in the index. An individual affected by the consumer report product can obtain their own report free of charge, dispute any item with the vendor directly, trigger an internal reinvestigation, and where the report is revised have the corrected copy sent both to them and to the entity that originally requested it.

That is statutory, individually exercisable and published by the vendor, which is exactly the recourse this index has never previously found. Held firmly at B for two reasons. First, it reaches the underlying data record and not the model: there is no route to contest a predicted litigation likelihood or a risk score, only the facts beneath it. Second, the mechanism has a performance record, and it is poor.

A federal enforcement action was brought under the statute, and class litigation has alleged mixed files containing other people's prescription records, non disclosure of data sources, and a reinvestigation process that pushes the burden onto the consumer, a criticism the vendor's own published process partly matches by asking disputants to obtain records from providers themselves.

Write it up as the finding it is: this is the only vendor in the index whose recourse can be assessed at all, and the reason is that a statute created both the right and the complaint record. The absence of litigation against every other vendor here is not evidence of good behaviour, it is evidence that nobody has standing to sue.

Cutting edge machine learning techniques, powerful algorithms and proprietary language processing, with no model, provider, architecture or version named anywhere. The interesting asymmetry is that the data supply chain is disclosed at category level, since pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers and medical providers are named as sources, while the specific sources for an individual record were the subject of a non disclosure claim in litigation, and the model supply chain is not disclosed at any level at all.

Real depth where it counts: the consumer report products are pulled inside carrier new business workflows at the point of underwriting, which is about as deep into a core process as a data product gets, and Nodal is a fully managed service requiring no client installation, scoring and rescoring claims against a client's own systems of record. The scenario generator is cloud native with an integration ready interface, and the healthcare line ships a data warehousing platform. Held off A because no named policy administration or claims system connector is published, so the integration story is described by function rather than by named counterparty.

Described as fully managed software as a service with no client installation, running on hyperscale cloud infrastructure. Nothing published on region, residency, tenancy or hosting arrangements, which is a notable silence for products holding individual prescription and medical claim histories across multiple jurisdictions.

No published price, tier, unit or pricing basis for any product in the portfolio. Everything routes to a contact form. Standard for a consultancy led seller and standard for this pocket, where only the smallest vendor publishes a number at all.

Among the broadest in the index. Buyer types: life carriers, health carriers, property and casualty insurers, reinsurers, self insured employers, third party administrators and health plans carrying government programme risk. Lines: life, health, long term care, disability, annuities, workers compensation, auto liability, general liability, property and flood. Products address underwriting, claims, reserving, pricing, capital and payment integrity, and the firm operates globally rather than in one market.