Subrogation evidence chronology

An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.

1. Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will claims recovery support teams use it to solve "recovery files lack a coherent chronology of documented events"?
2. Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
3. Run a paid pilot. Agree the acceptance criteria, input limits and reviewer responsibilities before starting.
4. Measure, then decide. Track chronology corrections and preparation time. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.

MVP scope for this solution. Costed pilot: Evidence organization; no liability or recovery decisions. Start with one buyer organization and a bounded set of representative inputs. Implement the first two modules: extract dated events; link original evidence. Support the third task through an assisted review queue: flag conflicting timestamps. Handle the remaining required functions manually until validated. Include input upload, source references, user correction, a reviewer approval step and export of reviewed recovery evidence chronology. Authentication, account isolation, deletion controls and basic operational logging are included. Specialized production certification, live write integrations and broader rollout are not included unless explicitly stated.

After the MVP. After paying customers repeatedly accept reviewed recovery evidence chronology, automate identify missing documents; record reviewer corrections; export chronology. Add one tested read integration, reusable customer configuration and scheduled repeat delivery. Increase supported formats or teams only when evaluation cases and reviewer capacity cover the new scope. Evidence organization; no liability or recovery decisions.

What the build depends on. Stable identifiers, an agreed data schema, reversible imports, mapping review and source ownership. Data quality work can exceed model development effort. Obtain representative authorized inputs, an agreed review rubric and a buyer-side owner. Specific scope: Evidence organization; no liability or recovery decisions.

Pricing to test

Test USD 500-2,500 for one collection cleanup and launch, followed by USD 100-500 monthly for maintenance within agreed record limits. Larger migrations and complex rights management are separately scoped. Prices are hypotheses. For this buyer, package the first sale around organize one closed recovery case and the defined reviewed recovery evidence chronology. Record actual review effort before offering a recurring allowance. The commercial pilot fee is distinct from the platform development budget.

Message to test

Source-linked recovery chronology with uncertainty preserved. Demonstrate the result with organize one closed recovery case for claims recovery support teams. Use a concrete before-and-after example without promising unmeasured savings.

Where to find buyers

Claims recovery administrators and specialist firms

Lead magnet

Organize one closed recovery case

The first 30 days

1. Week 1: interview five prospective buyers from claims recovery support teams and inspect how they handle recovery files lack a coherent chronology of documented events.
2. Week 2: prepare organize one closed recovery case using authorized or synthetic material.
3. Week 3: share the demonstration through claims recovery administrators and specialist firms and seek one bounded paid pilot.
4. Week 4: measure chronology corrections and preparation time, review delivery effort and ask for a repeat purchase. This is a validation schedule, not a promise that the full product can be built in thirty days.

Paid pilot

Agree the acceptance criteria, input limits and reviewer responsibilities before starting. Run organize one closed recovery case and deliver reviewed recovery evidence chronology. Compare chronology corrections and preparation time with the buyer's current process on comparable cases; include corrections, missed issues and reviewer time. Seek payment and repeat use. Stop or revise the scope if data access, accuracy or unit economics fail.

Success metrics

Chronology corrections and preparation time

Retention and expansion

Build repeat use around reviewed recovery evidence chronology. Save approved configurations and review decisions with permission, revisit unresolved exceptions and show progress on chronology corrections and preparation time. Offer a recurring volume allowance after repeat demand; expand to adjacent tasks only when the buyer asks and delivery quality remains acceptable.

Why clients would pick it

A useful niche taxonomy, customer-approved mappings and accumulated correction history that improve retrieval and reduce repeated cleanup. For this concept, accumulate permissioned examples and reviewer corrections around source-linked recovery chronology with uncertainty preserved. The durable asset is reliable task-specific execution and trusted customer configuration, not access to a general-purpose AI model.

Alternatives and positioning

Spreadsheets, shared folders, existing asset or information management systems and manual data cleanup. Position this concept around source-linked recovery chronology with uncertainty preserved. Compare it against the customer's current process on the same representative task. This is proposed differentiation; no exhaustive competitor study or uniqueness claim has been established.

Main delivery costs

Import cleanup, extraction, storage, indexing, steward review, duplicate investigation and recurring source updates. Initial validation additionally budgets for claims professional review. Track model usage, storage, reviewer minutes, exception handling and customer support per accepted deliverable.