ARQUA • Architecture in Practice • Context Library • Request a Briefing
Context
In regulated organisations, claims and disputes functions operate as high-frequency authority decision environments.
Each claim requires a determination of entitlement under policy, exceptions, and precedent. These determinations are repeated at scale and depend on interpretation rather than simple rule execution.
As policy complexity increases, claims and disputes systems experience rising cost, variance, and escalation — even when volumes remain stable.
The underlying constraint is not process efficiency.
It is authority coherence.
The Condition
Claims and disputes environments typically exhibit:
- Repeated entitlement decisions under regulation
- Overlapping policies, exclusions, and exceptions
- Ongoing policy change and clarification
- Reliance on individual judgement and experience
- Escalation to manage uncertainty
- Retrospective review to establish compliance
Over time, cost growth is driven less by throughput and more by interpretive variance.
Why Existing Approaches Break Down
Most improvement efforts focus on execution:
- Process optimisation improves flow, but not certainty
- Rules engines require determinism that policy rarely provides
- Automation and AI optimise pattern recognition, not authority
These approaches assume decisions fail because systems cannot act efficiently.
In claims and disputes, decisions fail because systems cannot reliably determine when action is permitted.
The Authority Gap
In regulated environments:
- Authority is defined in legislation, policy, and precedent
- Decisions occur in operational systems
- The connection between the two is implicit and manual
This gap forces organisations to rely on:
- Escalation to manage ambiguity
- Review to confirm correctness after the fact
- Audit to reconstruct meaning retrospectively
These controls compensate for missing authority expression, but increase cost and delay.
How SCIA Applies
SCIA addresses this condition by introducing a pre-execution authority layer.
In claims and disputes contexts, SCIA:
- Makes relevant policy context explicit at decision time
- Surfaces applicable entitlements, thresholds, and exclusions
- Indicates ambiguity and confidence rather than enforcing outcomes
- Preserves human judgement and accountability
- Produces an audit-ready trace of meaning
SCIA does not automate claims decisions.
It enables authority to be machine-expressible without becoming machine-decisive.
What Changes
- Policy interpretation becomes explicit and consistent
- Variance driven by hidden interpretation is reduced
- Escalation is reserved for genuine exceptions
- Decisions are easier to review and defend
What Does Not Change
- Humans remain accountable for outcomes
- Discretion is preserved
- Core systems remain unchanged
- Authority is not delegated to automation
When This Context Applies
This context is relevant where organisations experience:
- High claims or dispute volumes
- Inconsistent entitlement outcomes
- Escalation-heavy review processes
- Increasing audit and compliance overhead
- Cost growth driven by policy complexity
Why This Matters
As decision systems become more capable, the limiting factor shifts from intelligence to authority alignment.
Without explicit authority, systems either act too early or defer excessively. Both outcomes increase cost and risk.
Claims and disputes functions are often where this constraint appears first.
SCIA Perspective
SCIA treats claims and disputes as authority alignment problems, not workflow optimisation problems.
By addressing authority before automation, organisations can reduce variance, improve defensibility, and contain the compounding cost of policy complexity — without removing human accountability.
Related contexts
- Authority Before Action as a Structural Constraint
- When Governance Is No Longer Enough
- Audit and Review as Post-Hoc Authority Reconstruction
- Escalation as a Symptom of Missing Authority
- Frontline Discretion Without Machine-Expressible Authority
© Arqua Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.