For claims teams

Build a source-aware record before taking a claims position

Align contract criteria, voyage events and third-party data so experts and counsel can review what supports—and limits—the analysis.

Where the workflow usually breaks

A defensible review depends on chronology, definitions and source quality—not a result detached from its evidence.

Relevant logs, statements, AIS and weather records may use different time zones and intervals.

Contract criteria and data-provider methodologies do not always map cleanly to one another.

Gaps and conflicting evidence must be visible before commercial, expert or legal conclusions are drawn.

01
Define the review question
Record the relevant period, contract wording and criteria without replacing legal interpretation.
02
Align the timeline
Bring voyage events and available ship, AIS, weather and customer records onto a common time basis.
03
Expose gaps and conflicts
Keep source provenance, missing periods and inconsistent observations visible in the review.
04
Prepare expert review
Export a structured analysis package for the people responsible for the final commercial or legal position.

Source-attributed event timeline

Contract-criteria worksheet

Evidence-gap and conflict view

Traceable package for expert or counsel review

Exact fields, data coverage and export capabilities depend on the product configuration and applicable order.

Suggested starting plan

Suitable for recurring case analysis where source traceability and structured exports are important.

Choose Enterprise when cases require managed access, agreed retention, larger case volumes or contract-specific service controls.

Use a representative, appropriately redacted case to evaluate the review workflow.