Commercial Lines Service · Agent blueprint · validated with 8 team members

Policy Check Assistant

When a new or renewal policy arrives through IVANS, the agent compares the issued declarations with the bound proposal in Applied Epic and drafts a discrepancy list. It also pre-fills the Excel checklist. The account manager confirms the result, and any carrier correction request goes out only after approval.

84readiness · AI assist (a person acts)

3–7 hback per week, of 22 h now

$7K–15Ka year

3–5 wkto build · size M

Trigger

A new or renewal policy lands in Applied Epic from the IVANS download.

Done when: The checklist is complete and any discrepancies have been sent to the carrier for correction.

Needs: Issued policy record and declarations PDF (from the IVANS download in Applied Epic); Bound proposal details in Applied Epic (limits, deductibles, forms, named insureds, locations, premium); Policy checklist (Excel) template and the account's existing row, if any; Carrier contact for corrections (not yet known; see open questions)

What the agent does

1
Detect newly downloaded new or renewal policy and open a check case · Applied Epicapi
Power Automate polls Epic for policies delivered by the IVANS download that have no completed check.
2
Pull the bound proposal details for the account · Applied Epicapi
Limits, deductibles, forms, named insureds, locations and premium as bound.
3
Retrieve the declarations PDF attached to the policy · Applied Epicapi
The file is read directly. The agent does not drive Adobe Acrobat screens. Assumes the PDF is attached in Epic.
4
Extract limits, deductibles, forms, named insureds, locations and premium from the PDF · Adobe Acrobatai
The model reads the policy PDF content. It records the page for each value and marks low-confidence fields.
5
Compare issued values with bound values and list every difference · Applied Epicai
Check limits, forms, named insureds and locations. Flag a missing additional insured or waiver endorsement as a discrepancy.
6
Show the comparison with page references and a proposed Checking result · Microsoft 365 Copilotai
Presented to the account manager as a side-by-side list with a link to the PDF.
7
Review the list, correct it, and confirm the Checking result · Applied Epicperson
Licensed staff decide whether each difference is a real error. They confirm 'No discrepancies' or 'Discrepancy found'.
8
Write the extracted values and confirmed result into the policy checklist · Excelconnector
Runs only after the person's confirmation. Replaces the hand retyping from Epic.
9
Draft the correction request to the carrier listing each discrepancy · Outlookai
Only when the result is 'Discrepancy found'. Saved as a draft, not sent.
10
Approve or edit the carrier correction request before it is sent · Outlookperson
The account manager reviews the draft and the contact.
11
Send the approved correction request to the carrier · Outlookconnector
12
Log the check and any carrier request as an activity on the account · Applied Epicapi
Runs after approval. The activity text is the confirmed result and the discrepancy list.

Decisions the agent makes

Decide	Rule	Source
Checking result for a policy	Mark 'Discrepancy found' if the issued policy differs in limits, forms, named insureds or locations from what was bound. Otherwise mark 'No discrepancies'. (Agreement: most respondents.)	The team
Whether a missing additional insured endorsement is a discrepancy	Yes. Record it as a discrepancy and send it to the carrier for correction.	The team
Which discrepancy type matters most or how to prioritize types	No single rule. The team was split: limits or deductibles lead at 43%, then other types, named insured/address, and premium/billing. Not known yet: ask the team.	Not known yet
Whether a flagged difference is a real error or acceptable	Licensed staff decide. The agent only proposes. The team did not describe any acceptable-difference rules.	Not known yet
Whether a discrepancy goes to the carrier	Discrepancies go to the carrier for correction before the check is closed.	The team
Who at the carrier receives the correction request	Not known yet: ask the team	Not known yet

Where a person signs off

Account manager confirms the Checking result before the checklist is written
Account manager approves the carrier correction email before it is sent
Account manager approves the Epic activity entry, as part of the same confirmation

Exceptions

When	What the agent does
About 28% of checks end with the declarations PDF being reopened after the result is recorded (median 33 min vs 19 min).	The comparison view shows each extracted value with its PDF page, so the person can verify without searching. Confirmation is then logged as normal.
The policy is missing an additional insured endorsement (named by the team as the most common problem; frequency of unusual cases is disputed within the team).	Record as a discrepancy and draft the carrier correction request. The team described no other special handling.
About 24% of checks find a discrepancy.	Follow the carrier correction path. The check is not closed until the request has been sent.
The PDF cannot be read, a field has low extraction confidence, or the carrier layout is not recognized.	Hand to the account manager with the fields found and the unresolved fields marked. The person checks them against the PDF.
The bound proposal details are missing or incomplete in Applied Epic, or the PDF is not attached.	Stop and tell the account manager what is missing. Do not guess values.
The carrier requires corrections through its portal rather than email.	Hand to a person. The portal has no API, and this design does not include portal automation.

Build with

Power Automate: Orchestrates the flow: Epic trigger and API calls, Excel and Outlook connectors, approval requests
Microsoft 365 Copilot / Copilot Studio: Extracts values from the PDF, compares them with the bound details, drafts the discrepancy list and carrier email
Applied Epic API: Source of the bound proposal and policy attachment. Destination for the activity log
Excel connector: Writes the policy checklist rows
Outlook connector: Holds the drafted carrier request and sends it after approval

Skills: Power Automate, Copilot Studio or prompt design for document extraction, Applied Epic API, Testing against sample policies from several carriers

Before building

Service account with Applied Epic API access to read policies, proposals and attachments and to write activities
Confirm the IVANS-downloaded declarations PDF is available as an attachment through the Epic API
Power Automate and Microsoft 365 Copilot / Copilot Studio licenses for the builder and reviewers
Policy checklist stored in a location the Excel connector can reach, with a fixed column layout
A shared mailbox or approved sender for Outlook carrier emails
A test set of past policies from Travelers, The Hartford and Liberty Mutual with known outcomes, including known discrepancies

Risks

Carrier PDFs are formatted differently, so extraction may miss or misread values; every flagged result still needs human verification
Reviewers may over-trust the comparison and skip the PDF, so errors still slip through; show page references and mark low-confidence fields
Quality depends on the bound proposal data in Epic being complete and current
Scanned or image-only PDFs may not extract reliably
The policy-check rule excludes coverage advice. The agent must only list differences, not advise on coverage, since only licensed staff do that

How we'll know it worked

Median handling time per check (baseline 24.5 min; 18.6 min on the main path)
Team hours per week on policy checking (baseline 21.9 h for about 50 checks)
Share of checklist values retyped by hand (baseline 94%)
Share of checks where the PDF is reopened after the result is recorded (baseline 28%) and share found as discrepancies (baseline 24%), compared with errors caught by later review

Still to answer before building

Who is contacted at the carrier, how is a discrepancy tracked until corrected, and should the agent track open carrier requests?
Which items beyond limits, premium and forms are copied from Epic to Excel, and do they vary by policy?
Where are the checking rules written down, and are there approval or who-can-do-what requirements?
What counts as a discrepancy in the 'Other' category?
What is done differently for unusual checks other than missing additional insured endorsements?
Do any checks wait on carrier responses, and how long do they take? No waits were observed.
Should each check be logged as an activity in Epic, and in what format? The rule covers client requests only.
Are differences ever acceptable, such as premium rounding or address formatting, and who decides?

Where the team disagrees

Settle these first: an agent needs one rule, and new hires get mixed answers today.

Frequency of unusual cases: half say almost never, while about 38% say often (1 in 10 to 1 in 3).
Most common discrepancy type: no clear majority. Coverage limits or deductibles lead at 43%, followed by other types, named insured/address details and premium/billing.

Evidence

64% of cases follow the same steps
22 team hours a week
data is moved by hand from Applied Epic to Microsoft Excel (94% retyped)

Observed main path (64% of cases): Applied Epic → Policy Declarations.pdf (Adobe Acrobat) → Policy Checklist.xlsx (Excel) → Edit Checking result

Handover spec for the builder (text) →

Designed by AI from how the team did this work (2026-10-19 to 2026-10-23), the company's tools and its rules. A starting point for the builder: confirm system access and approvals before building.