What we work on
- Policy wordings and schedules
- Product information documents and pre-contractual disclosures
- Claims correspondence and settlement documentation
- Underwriting guidelines and manuals
- Regulatory and solvency reporting
- Broker and intermediary material
- Customer communications and complaint handling
- Compliance and internal policy documentation
Why this content fails quietly
Exclusions are the product. What is not covered defines what the policy is worth. Exclusion clauses are dense with conditionals, carve-outs and cross-references, and they are precisely where a system optimising for readable output does damage — by dropping a qualifier, merging two conditions, or resolving a deliberate ambiguity.
Defined terms must stay defined. A policy defines its terms and then uses them with mechanical consistency. An engine that varies the wording of a defined term across a document has broken the link between the definition and its use, and the definition no longer binds.
Modality decides liability. "Shall", "may", "must", "will", "is required to", "is expected to" — these are not stylistic alternatives in a policy, and machine output treats them as near-synonyms because in ordinary language they very nearly are.
Claims correspondence is read adversarially. A letter declining a claim will be examined by the claimant, possibly their lawyer, possibly an ombudsman. Ambiguity introduced in translation becomes leverage against you.
Pre-contractual disclosure is regulated. Product information documents follow prescribed structures and are subject to requirements about clarity and comprehensibility for a retail reader. Accurate but unreadable is a compliance problem, not a style preference.
What we deliver
- Reviewers with insurance or legal documentation experience, matched to line of business.
- A dedicated pass for conditionality, modality and defined terms, scored at critical severity separately from anything cosmetic.
- Consistency checking against the policy's own definitions and against prior versions of the same wording.
- A comprehensibility assessment for retail-facing disclosure documents, separate from accuracy.
- Structured error reporting against MQM, with a version trail suitable for regulatory and archive purposes.
- Terminology held across the wording, the schedule, the disclosure document and the claims correspondence, so all four say the same thing.
Languages where this matters most
German, for the DACH market and the depth of its insurance vocabulary. The Nordic languages, where output looks strong and review effort is higher than the standard discount assumes. Arabic, for Gulf market growth and takaful documentation. The European set for cross-border business, where the exposure is whichever language nobody internally can read against the original wording.