ClaimClarity
← Back to AppTry a sample

SYSTEM DESIGN & SPECIFICATION

How ClaimClarity works

AI extracts evidence. Deterministic rules reconcile it. The citizen sees the proof.

Synthetic test dataNo live EPFO accessDeterministic state machineAuditable trace

THE ARCHITECTURAL BOUNDARY

Large language and vision models are exceptional at parsing messy, unstructured artifacts into typed observations. However, the final claim reconciliation decision must never be generated by an LLM. ClaimClarity enforces a strict separation: AI performs evidence extraction only; a pure, deterministic engine performs reconciliation.

End-to-End Reconciliation Pipeline

Click any stage to inspect what it does & does not do
AI

2. AI Evidence Extraction

Collapse ▲

Multimodal vision & language extraction converts messy artifacts into candidate observations.

✓ WHAT IT DOES

  • Extract explicit dates, claim IDs, raw status strings, and monetary amounts
  • Record provenance pointers directly back to the originating artifact
  • Preserve textual ambiguity and explicit uncertainties

✕ WHAT IT DOES NOT DO

  • Decide the official claim outcome or final claim state
  • Hallucinate or infer missing facts not present in the record
  • Give free-form unconstrained advice to the citizen

WHY THIS ARCHITECTURE?

LLMs are useful for turning messy evidence into structured observations. The final reconciliation decision remains deterministic and auditable.

1. Zero Decision Hallucination

By restricting generative models to extraction, the system is mathematically incapable of hallucinating a settled or credited claim status that is not supported by chronological evidence.

2. Complete Grievance Auditability

Every output produces a deterministic audit trace of fired rules, chronological ordering, and identifier checks. If a citizen files a grievance, the exact proof chain can be reproduced.

3. Safe Refusal by Design

When evidence is missing or fundamentally incompatible, the engine explicitly outputs UNKNOWN or CONFLICT instead of generating plausible-sounding but dangerous advice.

CONCRETE EXAMPLE WALKTHROUGH

How a contradictory claim is resolved

1. RAW EVIDENCE
Portal (03 Jul)
Processing
SMS (05 Jul)
Processing
Passbook (13 Jul)
₹45,000 credited
2. RECONCILIATION
Chronology: 13 Jul > 05 Jul > 03 Jul
Status precedence: Later financial credit supersedes earlier in-flight processing
Tagged: Portal & SMS marked Superseded
3. CITIZEN ANSWER
Supported state:
CREDITED

Why: Later financial evidence supports a completed outcome. Older portal records reflect delayed sync.

Action: Check bank account; do not reapply.

Technical Disclosure & Implementation Notes

Evidence extraction uses Google Gemini 2.5 Flash with structured output schemas (JSON Mode + Zod) on the backend. The reconciliation engine is implemented in pure TypeScript without external model dependencies, guaranteeing deterministic execution across serverless environments.

ClaimClarity is an independent public-utility prototype developed for civic decision support. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or integrated with the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO).