Predictika
Four validators for four kinds of decision
Agent actions · CPQ to cash · Finance operations · Financial services
Where the validators are used
Configure Price Quote (CPQ)
Complex product configurations and pricing logic require deterministic validation. Predictika ensures every quote generated by an AI assistant adheres to enterprise configuration and pricing policies.
See what it checksBanking & Financial Services
Financial decisions require consistent policy application. Predictika enables conversational AI interfaces backed by deterministic logic execution.
See what it checksInsurance
Insurance workflows rely on strict policy interpretation. Predictika ensures claims and coverage decisions are validated against policy rules before automated responses are delivered.
See what it checksHospitality & Travel
Customer service automation often involves structured compensation and service recovery policies. Predictika ensures that automated agents consistently apply the business logic.
See what it checksAgent Action Validator
For enterprises putting agents in front of money, code, tickets, access and customers. The validator sits between the agent and the action.
How does a validator stop an agent’s wrong action before it runs? →
Request a validatorWhat it checks
- Role and scope: what this agent may do, on which target
- Session history: two harmless actions that are not harmless together
- Live limits: budgets, quotas and counters that live in other systems
- Approval: soft findings hold the action for a person, with the reason attached
- Hospitality and travel: travel compensation, loyalty program rules, service recovery and booking constraints
Where rules-based systems get it wrong
| Situation | Rules-based approach | With Predictika |
|---|---|---|
| Same action, different context | A static allowlist permits a refund every time. | The validator reads the team's remaining budget and holds the one that breaks it. |
| Actions that combine | Each step is allowed on its own. | Reading restricted data and then posting to a public channel is blocked as a pair. |
| Limits kept elsewhere | The agent is trusted to count its own usage. | An external counter is read at decision time. |
CPQ-to-Cash Validator
For manufacturers, cloud and software vendors, and teams whose quoting rules have grown hard to change. Product, pricing, bill of materials and delivery commitments run in the same engine.
Teams on legacy Salesforce CPQ, which entered end-of-sale in March 2025, can use a validator as a deterministic layer alongside their current rules while they decide what comes next. Systems integrators: see the partner page.
What it checks
- Configuration: compatible parts, power and capacity, in any order the choices arrive
- Pricing: stacked discounts, commitments, tiers and price floors
- Approvals: who must sign off, and why
- Bill of materials: the quote expands to the right parts and quantities
- Commitments: delivery dates and capacity promised at quote time
- Changes: co-terming, renewals and mid-term upgrades
Where rules-based systems get it wrong
| Situation | Rules-based approach | With Predictika |
|---|---|---|
| Discount stacking | Each rule passes alone and the combination breaks the floor. | All levers are reasoned over together. |
| Order of choices | A guided flow works only in the sequence it was built for. | A buyer or an agent can state needs in any order. |
| Promises made at quote time | A delivery date or capacity commitment is not checked against what can be built. | The commitment is reasoned over with the configuration and the supply behind it. |
| Changing a rule | A change touches many places and is retested by hand. | A rule is edited once. One audit model took six rounds in under twelve hours. |
Finance Operations Validator
For finance, procurement, audit and tax teams and the firms that advise them. Every finding cites the rule that produced it.
Request a validatorWhat it checks
- Procure to pay: spend approvals, limits and vendor rules checked before the commitment is made
- Recognition and measurement tests written as the standard states them
- Incompatible duties across existing and requested roles
- Scope and materiality thresholds, with the OR and AND logic kept exact
- Complete, readable audit messages for every finding
Where rules-based systems get it wrong
| Situation | Rules-based approach | With Predictika |
|---|---|---|
| Threshold logic | A spreadsheet or script hides which test applied. | Each test is a named rule with its own message. |
| Combined conditions | "Either" and "both" get merged in translation. | The condition is modeled as written. |
| Explaining a result | The reviewer reconstructs why. | The reason is returned with the verdict. |
Financial Services Validator
For banks, lenders, insurers, brokerages and digital-asset platforms. The validator checks the decision or order before it goes through, and every outcome carries the rule behind it.
Request a validatorWhat it checks
- Sanctions, AML and KYC: screening and risk rules applied before onboarding or a payment
- Lending: loan eligibility against program rules, in any order the facts arrive
- BNPL decision support and fraud rules enforcement
- Insurance: claims and coverage decisions against policy terms and limits, policy eligibility, and automated underwriting assistance
- Orders: trading and digital-asset orders, including those an agent proposes, against account, risk and position limits
Where rules-based systems get it wrong
| Situation | Rules-based approach | With Predictika |
|---|---|---|
| Program rules that interact | Each check passes alone and the combination is not allowed. | All conditions are reasoned over together, and the verdict names the one that failed. |
| Orders proposed by an agent | The agent is trusted to respect limits. | Each order is checked against account limits and open positions before it reaches the venue. |
| Explaining a decision | A reviewer reconstructs why a case passed. | The rule and the reason are returned with the verdict. |