Sums insured, deductibles, sub-limits and clause references pulled straight from the schedule, with a confidence score on every field. Proven on 500 of your own schedules in 14 days.
Fixed pilot fee. Below the field accuracy we agree together, you pay nothing. No per-schedule pricing, no annual licence.
What rekeying cover terms really costs
Every renewal, every mid-term adjustment, every new binder: someone reads a schedule and retypes the numbers into a system that will be used to advise a client. Work out how many times that happened this year.
per schedule to key sums insured, deductibles, sub-limits and clause references, longer where the wording sits in an appendix.
keying error rate on limits and deductibles. A misplaced digit in a sub-limit is not visible until a claim tests it.
the same figures typically get typed into: the broker system, the client presentation and the renewal spreadsheet.
senior enough to read a schedule correctly, doing work that does not need their judgement.
Three fields. This is what rekeying cover terms costs you per year.
Excludes the errors-and-omissions exposure created when a mistyped limit reaches a client summary, which is the real reason this work stays with senior people.
The mechanism
A schedule is not a form. The same cover appears as a table on one insurer's paper, as prose in another's, and as a clause reference in a third's. Extraction has to understand the cover, not the layout.
Property, liability, business interruption, extensions and exclusions are found wherever they sit, including in appendices and endorsement pages attached after the main schedule.
Limits, sub-limits, deductibles and indemnity periods are read with their basis: per occurrence or aggregate, each and every claim or annual. A number without its basis is not captured, because a number without its basis is a liability.
Every field carries a confidence score. Anything ambiguous, including cover that is only referenced by a clause code, is flagged for a human rather than being silently normalised into something tidy.
A commercial combined schedule on the left. The structured cover data on the right. Illustrative example with fictional data.
| Section | Cover | Limit | Excess |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Buildings, reinstatement basis | 4,600,000 | 2,500 |
| B | Stock, incl. deterioration | 980,000 | 5,000 |
| C | Business interruption, 24 months | 2,200,000 | 72 hrs |
| D | Public liability, per occurrence | 5,000,000 | 1,000 |
MI-CC-449012 · Bldgs 4.6m · Stock 980k · BI 2.2m/24m · PL 5m · extensions pending wording
The offer
One fixed fee. Fourteen days. Your real schedules from your real insurers. A field-level accuracy number that tells you, and us, whether the full build is worth doing.
Not a demonstration on a clean specimen schedule. The pilot ends with your own documents parsed and a field-by-field score you can challenge line by line.
Against a problem costing most clients €40,000–70,000 a year.
Credited in full against the build if you proceed within 90 days.
No software to install, no workshop series, no project team on your side. Your people keep working; we work on copies.
Before we start, we agree the accuracy threshold that makes this worth deploying. Together, in the engagement letter. If the measured result on your documents comes in below it, the pilot is free. We can offer this because we scope honestly: if we don't think your document mix can hit the number, we decline the pilot and tell you why.
Pilots run one at a time per engineer, so they start in the order requests arrive. Current lead time: about two weeks
Your actual alternatives
| Do nothing | Hire another technician | Vertical SaaS product | Braynex pilot → build | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Captures limits with their basis | ✕ whatever gets typed | ✓ if trained well | ✕ number only, basis lost | ✓ basis captured or flagged |
| Cost over 3 years | rising with renewals | €120–170k+ | per-document pricing | known, fixed, quoted |
| Handles a forty-page schedule | ✕ slowly | ✓ slowly | ✕ first pages only | ✓ including appendices |
| Proof before commitment | - | ✕ | ✕ demo on their specimen | ✓ measured on yours |
| Flags cover it cannot see | - | ✓ usually | ✕ silent omission | ✓ named and scored |
Why believe us
AI that converts medical records into legally defensible timelines. Accuracy-critical, regulated, every extraction traceable to its source page.
Client meeting recordings become compliant advisory documents automatically, adopted across the practice for every client meeting.
Production vision-AI moderation for marketplace listings: real ML in production at volume, not an API wrapper.
Swiss entity (Zug) · EU-region hosting · GDPR & revised FADP compliant · named senior engineers you meet before signing
Fair questions
It gets captured as a reference and flagged as incomplete, which is what happened in the worked example above. Guessing what a clause code contains would be the single most dangerous thing a system like this could do, so it does not. If you supply the clause library, we can resolve them; if not, the gap is visible.
Not on its own, and we would advise against wiring it that way at first. The realistic pattern is that extraction removes the typing and a human confirms the fields that carry advice risk. The accuracy report tells you which fields are safe to trust and which are not, which is a better basis for that decision than a vendor assurance.
Worth doing, and where it exists you should use it. In practice the structured feeds cover your largest insurers and the schedules keep arriving from everyone else. This is for the everyone-else, which is usually where the manual time actually sits.
Sometimes you should. If the pilot shows a market product handles your insurer mix, the report says so and we part as friends. The fixed fee buys the answer, not a predetermined recommendation. A build gets recommended only where the evidence earns it.
EU-region hosting, a GDPR-compliant processing agreement, and a contract with our Swiss entity in Zug. Nothing trains a public model. Your own compliance lead can review the setup before the pilot starts, and the pilot sample can be narrowed to a subset you are comfortable sharing.
Because we are structured for exactly this engagement size. The large consultancies staff €60k projects with juniors or decline them; we deliver them with the people you actually meet. That is the trade we have built the company on.
Start here
Tell us how many schedules you process and which insurers dominate. An engineer replies within one business day and tells you plainly whether your insurer mix is a good fit or a poor one.
Lead Engineer · runs your pilot
The people on this page are the people on your project. No handover to a delivery team you never met: the engineer who scopes your pilot is the engineer who builds it.
Braynex
Prishtina, Kosovo · Zug, Switzerland
Contact: contact@braynex.ai
Responsible for the content of this page: Braynex. Further statutory details (register entries, VAT identification) are available on request and via the main website at braynex.ai.
The contact form on this page sends your entries directly to contact@braynex.ai by email. We use the data you provide solely to respond to your enquiry; it is not shared with third parties, used for advertising, or added to any mailing list.
This page is hosted in the EU region and sets no marketing cookies. For questions about your data or to request deletion of correspondence, write to contact@braynex.ai.