Predictika · Warranty and protection-plan claims (from the Uniphore Proof Room)

Before a claims agent repairs, replaces or denies, the decision is checked

An AI claims agent proposes to repair, replace or deny a laptop on a warranty or protection-plan claim and states the repair share of the device value. Before it acts, the request goes to Predictika’s validator, which checks theft and damage coverage, the coverage term, the repair limit and the sign-off rule, and returns a verdict with every reason.

Scope: device warranty and protection-plan claims — laptops and similar devices. See everything this validator covers

This validator models one decision type, modeled on general public practice with fictional thresholds. It is not a general-purpose validator and does not reproduce any company's production rules.

Device warranty and protection-plan claims (laptops and similar devices) — theft exclusion, accidental damage only with an active plan, the coverage term (12 months, or 36 with a plan), the 75% repair limit, the agent's stated repair percentage, and supervisor sign-off for replacing devices worth $1,500 or more.

It handles any case built from the items it lists, not just the scenarios shown here. It is not a model of any named company's own rules or systems.

Where rules-based tools get it wrong

Click to expand

General statements about how such checks are commonly built, not about any named product. This is our general characterization; we have not tested any specific product.

Scenario	Typical rules-based tools	Predictika validator
A claim on a device whose protection plan has expired	Only if someone is vigilant An expired plan removes accidental-damage cover and cuts the coverage term from 36 months to 12. These are two separate rules, and someone has to remember that both depend on the plan status.	The validator derives the coverage term from the plan status and applies the accidental-damage rule to the same status, so one expired plan raises both findings in a single answer.
A theft claim on a device with an active protection plan	Only if someone is vigilant An active plan makes a claim look covered. That the plan excludes theft is an exclusion someone has to remember for the claim type.	The validator checks coverage by claim type: theft is not covered, so the agent cannot replace the device.
A repair that costs more than the repair limit	Only with workarounds The limit is a share of the device's value, so the estimate has to be divided by the value and compared, claim by claim.	The validator computes the repair cost as a share of the device value and blocks a repair above the limit.
A repair percentage the agent states that does not match the estimate and the value	Only with workarounds A stated percentage has to be recomputed from two other figures to be checked.	The validator recomputes the percentage and blocks any stated figure that differs.

Scenarios and results

Click to expand

The recorded result of the validator for each scenario on this page: the request the AI agent sent, the verdict, and every finding, in the order they appear above.

1. Expired plan: Repair of accidental damage on an expired plan

The agent's request. Please repair the laptop on claim HP-8315, accidental damage. The device is 20 months old and worth $2,000, its protection plan has expired, and the repair estimate is $1,800, which is 60% of its value.

Verdict: Blocked.

Accidental damage needs an active plan. Accidental damage is only covered with an active protection plan.
Past the coverage term. The device is 20 months old, past its coverage term.
Repair costs too much. The repair would cost more than 75% of the device value, so repair is not allowed. Replace or deny instead.
Stated repair percentage is wrong. The stated repair cost of 60% of device value does not match the validator figure.

2. Expired plan: The agent resubmits after fixing the errors

The agent's request. Please replace the laptop on claim HP-8315, accidental damage. The device is 20 months old and worth $2,000, its protection plan has expired, and the repair estimate is $1,800, which is 90% of its value.

Verdict: Blocked.

Accidental damage needs an active plan. Accidental damage is only covered with an active protection plan.
Past the coverage term. The device is 20 months old, past its coverage term.
Supervisor must sign off. Replacing a device worth $1,500 or more needs a supervisor to sign off.

3. Expired plan: The agent resubmits after fixing the errors

The agent's request. Please deny claim HP-8315, accidental damage. The device is 20 months old and worth $2,000, its protection plan has expired, and the repair estimate is $1,800, which is 90% of its value.

Verdict: Allowed.

4. Theft: Replacement for a stolen laptop

The agent's request. Please replace the laptop on claim HP-4471, reported stolen. The device is 10 months old and worth $1,200, and has an active protection plan.

Verdict: Blocked.

Theft is not covered. Theft is not covered by any warranty or protection plan.

5. Theft: The agent resubmits after fixing the errors

The agent's request. Please deny claim HP-4471, reported stolen. The device is 10 months old and worth $1,200, and has an active protection plan.

Verdict: Allowed.

6. Repair limit: Repair that costs too much

The agent's request. Please repair the device on claim HP-6690, a hardware defect. The device is 14 months old and worth $1,000, has an active protection plan, and the repair estimate is $900, which is 90% of its value.

Verdict: Blocked.

Repair costs too much. The repair would cost more than 75% of the device value, so repair is not allowed. Replace or deny instead.

7. Repair limit: The agent resubmits after fixing the errors

The agent's request. Please replace the device on claim HP-6690, a hardware defect. The device is 14 months old and worth $1,000, has an active protection plan, and the repair estimate is $900, which is 90% of its value.

Verdict: Allowed.

8. Replacement approval: Repair percentage that does not add up

The agent's request. Please replace the device on claim HP-7203, a hardware defect. The device is 20 months old and worth $2,000, has an active protection plan, and the repair estimate is $1,500, which is 50% of its value.

Verdict: Blocked.

Stated repair percentage is wrong. The stated repair cost of 50% of device value does not match the validator figure.
Supervisor must sign off. Replacing a device worth $1,500 or more needs a supervisor to sign off.

9. Replacement approval: The agent resubmits after fixing the errors

Verdict: Needs approval.

Supervisor must sign off. Replacing a device worth $1,500 or more needs a supervisor to sign off.

Narration transcript

Click to expand

The text of the narrated walkthrough, step by step.

Welcome to a demo of Predictika's Validator. An AI claims agent proposes to repair, replace or deny a laptop on a warranty or protection-plan claim and states the repair share of the device value. Before it acts, the request goes to Predictika’s validator, which checks theft and damage coverage, the coverage term, the repair limit and the sign-off rule, and returns a verdict with every reason.
I will start with the first request by the agent.
The agent says. Please repair the laptop on claim HP-8315, accidental damage. The device is 20 months old and worth $2,000, its protection plan has expired, and the repair estimate is $1,800, which is 60% of its value.
Before it goes out, the agent calls the validator.
Blocked, with four findings, all in one answer. Accidental damage is only covered with an active protection plan. The device is 20 months old, past its coverage term. The repair would cost more than 75% of the device value, so repair is not allowed. Replace or deny instead. The other one is on screen.
The validator returned four blocking findings in one answer. A check that reads one field at a time would pass most of this; it shows only when the choices in the request are checked against each other.
What this shows: for a claim on a device whose protection plan has expired, a rules-based tool does this reliably only when someone is vigilant.
Now the agent resubmits.
The corrected request. It changes the proposed action to replace and the stated repair percentage to 90 percent.
It calls the validator again.
Still blocked, with two findings and one approval, all in one answer. Accidental damage is only covered with an active protection plan. The device is 20 months old, past its coverage term.
Two findings cleared. Still blocking: accidental damage needs an active plan and past the coverage term. One approval also remains for a person: supervisor must sign off.
The agent resubmits once more.
The revised request. It changes the proposed action to deny.
It calls the validator once more.
This time the validator clears it.
All three earlier findings are cleared.
Four problems caught in one call, fixed in two passes, and a clean request. That is the value of Predictika's validator: catching mistakes before the action runs.