Why Runink? What makes it a painkiller
Industries
Logistics & Supply Chain Insurance Banking & Financial Services Telecom Marketing
Use cases
Blog
Whitepapers
Pricing
Book your Consultation
Check it out
English English Français Français Español Español Português Português

Insurance

The rule is written down. The question is whether it is the one being applied.

Policy wording is a rule. So is a regulatory obligation, a delegated authority agreement, an internal limit. Each one is enforced in a system, performed by a person following a procedure, or neither — and which of the three tends to surface only when somebody goes looking.

Where the decision happens

  1. Records you already keepSpread across the systems you already run.
  2. One finding, with its evidenceDrawn together into a single proposed action.
  3. A person approves itBy name, and nothing goes out before they do.
  4. The work goes outAnd the reason stays on the record.

Where it goes wrong

  • The threshold that drifted

    The value at which a claim needs a second review is raised in the workflow to clear a backlog. It is meant to be temporary. The policy document is never updated, and months later nobody has decided either way.

  • Decisions explained to someone who was not in the room

    Every step applied to claims, policy and payment data has to be reconstructable afterwards. When the answer is assembled by hand across several systems, you pay the assembly cost every time the question is asked.

  • Reconciliations done periodically because of volume

    Reserve movements follow rules. Reinsurance recoveries follow treaty terms. Both compare a written instrument against a stream of transactions, and both get sampled because the stream is too long to read.

  • Authority you delegated and still answer for

    Where underwriting is delegated, you remain accountable for what is decided under it. Reading the delegation agreement against the bordereaux the agent reports back is a rules-against-records comparison at volume.

Who owns this

The audit question is the same one in every function: not whether a control exists, but what it did.

  • Claims operations

    A difference surfaces at the point of decision, not at period end — while the file is open and the payment has not gone out.

  • Compliance and risk

    "Controls were operating effectively during the period" becomes "here is every exception, when it was found, what was decided and by whom".

  • Internal audit

    Evidence is a by-product of the work, so demonstrating that a control operated stops being an assembly project.

  • Finance

    Where the written terms and what was charged or accrued diverge is stated plainly, with the clause and the records behind it.

  • IT and security

    The reasoning runs on your hardware and the records stay on your systems, so the security review is a description, not a negotiation.

What changes

  • The rules as written — policy wording, regulatory text, a delegation agreement — are set beside the rules your systems apply, and every difference is sorted: aligned, drifted, running without a policy, written but unenforced.
  • Each finding carries the observation, the rule it invoked, the records it cited, a severity and a proposed action — then a second, independent judgement on it, with the reason attached.
  • Anything turning on a judgement about risk appetite is filed as needing a person, with the ambiguity named and the write-up done.
  • Nothing that cannot be undone proceeds without a named person, and a change to a data connection cannot be made anonymously.

How you will know it worked

These figures are yours, not ours. Write down where each stands today, and over what period, before anything changes — once it moves, the baseline is gone.

The measure Your figure today What moves it
Claims cycle time Claims system, last four completed quarters: median days from first notification of loss to settlement, by product. Down. The wait is mostly evidence being gathered; here the supporting documents are read against each other as the file is built.
Leakage Your last file-review cycle: amounts paid beyond what the wording, the authority limit or the procedure required. Note the sample size beside it. Down, and the sample stops being the limit: every file is read against the wording and the authority for its value.
Loss adjustment expense Ledger, last twelve months: allocated and unallocated loss adjustment expense per closed claim, by class. Down, because the assembly is the cost — finding the report, matching it to the schedule, checking the invoice against both.
Touchless settlement rate, read with reopen rate Claims workflow, same period for both: the share of closed claims settled with no manual queue step, and the share reopened inside your standard window. The first up, the second flat. Alone the first is easy to game; here only files whose documents disagree stop for a person.
Subrogation recovery rate, and recoveries lost to time bar Recovery ledger: amounts recovered against amounts identified as recoverable, plus the files where the right to recover lapsed before anything was filed. Both by one mechanism. Small cases expire because assembling one costs more than it is worth, and that threshold follows the assembly cost.
Evidence-assembly time for an audit or a supervisory request Your last internal audit and your last supervisory request: elapsed days from question to answer, and the person-days inside that. Down. The observation, the rule it invoked, the records it cited and who approved it are kept as the work is done, so answering is retrieval.

Two things that make the above possible

  • Your machines

    Claim files stay on your own machines

    The reasoning runs on machines you own. Claimant details, medical evidence and adjuster notes are read where they already sit, and nothing goes to an outside model provider.

    What you would notice
    The privacy assessment before any claims tooling goes live: no transfer out to argue about. And when a supervisor asks who read a claimant's file, and under what authority, the answer is a record.
  • Your machines The open web

    Outside checks that do not say what you are checking

    When a file needs public sources — adverse media on a claimant, a supplier's history, a court listing — an ordinary browser reads the open web directly. No outside search service sits in the path.

    What you would notice
    The query is the sensitive part. Asking a search vendor whether a claimant is under investigation tells that vendor who you are investigating, on a record you do not control. Here the question stays inside, so the check can run on files where sending the name out would not have been acceptable.

Who you would be working with

Runink is founder-led. The person in the first meeting is the person who designed the thing being discussed.

Dan Paes

Chief executive and technical founder

Dan Paes has spent more than twenty years inside other people's enterprises, running digital transformation and full-scale modernisation programmes for global organisations. The long kind: what is being replaced is what the business is running on that morning, and the work is judged on whether anything broke.

He founded Runink and runs it as chief executive. Technical founder is the more useful half of that title — he sets the architecture and works in the code, so the person answering an architecture question in a first meeting is the person who decided the answer, and the distance between a question and a change is short.

It is also why the platform is shaped the way it is. It runs on hardware the customer controls, and the reasoning about their data stays there. That is the more expensive way to build it and it closes off the convenient route, which is the kind of decision that has to be settled by whoever owns the architecture rather than left where it can quietly be traded away.

He is a FINOS Ambassador. FINOS is the Fintech Open Source Foundation, part of the Linux Foundation, and the work there is interoperability between institutions that share a market but not their infrastructure and never their data. It is the same problem this platform is pointed at, argued in the open, in front of people who say so when it is wrong.

  • 20+ years

    Digital transformation and full-scale modernisation for global enterprises.

  • CEO and technical founder

    Runink. Sets the architecture and writes code in it.

  • FINOS Ambassador

    Fintech Open Source Foundation, a Linux Foundation project. Open source interoperability, in public.

Check any of it

See whether it fits

Bring one control and the systems it is meant to live in — a second-review threshold, a delegation agreement, a treaty term. Half an hour is usually enough to see whether what is written and what is applied still agree.

Book a consultation Read the CORE paper

The long version of the mechanism on this page: what gets read, what a finding contains, how a second independent judgement is formed, and who approves. No case studies, no customer names, no return-on-investment figures.