From messy SOV to
underwriting-ready schedule.
SimplAI cleans, validates and standardizes every location — then flags only what needs an underwriter's judgment.
30-day proof of value · Your formats · Your acceptance criteria
Book a 45-minute working session with an underwriting specialist. Contact details only — no SOV data is uploaded through this form.
We care about your privacy. Learn how we handle your data in our Privacy Policy.
See a broker schedule become an underwriting file
SimplAI SOV Agent: from broker schedule to underwriting-ready data.
SOV intake is where property submissions
lose days and accuracy
Submissions wait on transcription
Every schedule arrives in a different shape. Assistants retype addresses, values and COPE fields before an underwriter can even look at the risk.
Bad data reaches rating and cat models
Duplicated locations, unusable geocodes and total mismatches slip through, so exposure is priced on numbers nobody validated.
Capacity is spent on the wrong work
Skilled underwriting time goes into spreadsheet clean-up instead of quoting, and quote turnaround decides which broker wins the business.
Standardize SOV intake across every team
One validated intake pipeline — tuned to what each role needs from it. Pick a seat to see where it pays off.
Portfolio-grade SOV data, every submission
Standardise schedules across brokers and programs so portfolio aggregation, cat modelling and rating all read the same values.
From a broker's spreadsheet to a schedule
your rating engine accepts
Five stages, one of which is deliberately human. The agent does the transcription and the arithmetic; underwriters keep the judgement calls that move exposure.
- 01
Intake
Broker email, spreadsheet, PDF or portal export lands in the queue with its cover note attached.
Multi-tab XLSXScanned PDFPortal CSV - 02
Extract
Locations, values and COPE fields are read out of merged headers, footnotes and split rows.
Cell-level provenancePer-field confidence - 03
Normalise & validate
Addresses standardised and geocoded, construction and occupancy mapped to your codes, totals reconciled, duplicates identified.
ISO / ATC mappingGeocode precisionTotal reconciliation - 04
Human review
Anything ambiguous or exposure-moving stops here as a written exception with a proposed resolution — never a silent guess.
BlockingUnderwriter callAdvisoryHuman decision point - 05
Underwriting-ready output
Your schedule template, exception report and underwriting summary, delivered to the systems that need them.
Carrier templateException reportAPI / file drop
Follow one broker schedule from inbox to underwriting file
An illustrative four-row schedule with the problems underwriting teams actually see: duplicated locations, an address with no street number, free-text construction, and a missing year built.
| Source | Loc | Address | Construction | Yr | Area | TIV | Issues |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tab: 'Sched (final v3)' · row 14 | 1 | 1200 e. 5th st, ste 400, austin tx | steel frm / joisted? | missing | 48,200 sf | $12.4M (bldg+contents) | 3 |
| Tab: 'Sched (final v3)' · row 15 | 1a | 1200 East Fifth Street Austin, Texas 78702 | Steel | 1998 | 48200 | 12,400,000 | 2 |
| Broker PDF · page 3 | 2 | Warehouse — Hwy 6, Alvin TX (no street no.) | Metal / pre-eng | abt 1975 | — | 3.1m | 4 |
| Tab: 'add'l locs' · row 2 | 3 | 44 Water St, Bridgeport, CT 06604 | JM | 1962 | 21,900 | $8,750,000 | 1 |
| Loc | Address (geocoded) | ISO | Yr built | Area | Bldg / Cont / BI | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001 | 1200 E 5th St, Ste 400, Austin, TX 78702 | ISO 4 | 1998 | 48,200 sf | 9.6M / 2.8M / 1.45M | High |
| 0002 | Hwy 6 (unnumbered), Alvin, TX 77511 | ISO 3 | 1975 | — | 2.4M / 0.7M / 0 | Review |
| 0003 | 44 Water St, Bridgeport, CT 06604 | ISO 2 (JM) | 1962 | 21,900 sf | 6.1M / 2.65M / 0 | High |
Locations 1 and 1a resolved to a single record (0001). 2 exceptions routed for review.
EXC-01 · Duplicate location — Blocking
Loc 1 and Loc 1a are the same building at 1200 E 5th St. Proposed: merge into record 0001, retain higher-confidence values. Blocks release until confirmed.
EXC-02 · Missing year built — Underwriter call
Loc 2 is coastal with no evidenced year built. Proposed: report as unknown with reason — do not average. Exposure-moving on a wind-exposed risk.
EXC-03 · Mismatched TIV format — Advisory
Loc 1 states "$12.4M" against a component sum of 12,400,000. Proposed: adopt reconciled component total; flagged for visibility, non-blocking.
EXC-04 · No street number — Underwriter call
Loc 2 geocodes to a road segment, not a rooftop. Proposed: retain segment-level geocode with precision flag for cat modelling.
Sample data is invented for illustration. It is not a customer schedule.
Automation stops where underwriting judgement starts
The failure mode teams fear is not slow processing — it is a confident, wrong number reaching a rating engine. The SOV agent is built to surface doubt rather than resolve it quietly. Review thresholds are yours to set: which fields always require sign-off, which confidence level triggers escalation, and which exceptions block release of the schedule.
Escalate, don't estimate
A missing year built on a coastal risk is an exception, not an average. Values the agent cannot evidence are reported as unknown with the reason.
Every field traces to a source
Each output value links to the originating cell, page region or broker note, so a reviewer can confirm in one click rather than re-opening the workbook.
Exceptions are written for underwriters
Severity, the exposure at stake, and a proposed resolution — in schedule language, not model diagnostics.
Reviewer decisions are recorded
Accepted, amended or rejected, with who decided and when, so the file stands up to peer review, audit and capacity-provider questions.
What changes for each person who touches the schedule
Reads a schedule, not a spreadsheet
Opens the file with values reconciled, duplicates resolved and the open questions already listed in severity order.
Stops rekeying and starts routing
Transcription disappears from the queue; the remaining work is chasing brokers on named, specific gaps.
Consistent geocoding and COPE across submissions
Schedules arrive coded the same way regardless of broker, so aggregation and modelling inputs stop drifting.
A defined ingestion contract
Typed schema, confidence scores, exception payloads and audit records your core systems can consume without bespoke parsing.
What teams get back when SOV intake stops being manual
SimplAI-reported results; outcomes vary by workflow and data quality.
Trusted by Industry Leaders
SimplAI has fundamentally changed how we approach AI adoption inside the organization. Instead of running isolated experiments with different models and tools, we now have a unified platform to build, orchestrate, and govern AI agents across multiple business workflows.
What stood out for us was the platform's ability to handle enterprise requirements - security, governance, and observability - while still allowing teams to rapidly prototype and deploy AI solutions. SimplAI helped us move from fragmented AI initiatives to a scalable AI operating model
We chose SimplAI for its agentic operating system and enterprise-grade reliability. Today, we run multiple agents across GTM, operations, and customer support — all on a platform that scales and deploys securely on private clouds. The support from the team has been exceptional.
SimplAI has fundamentally changed how we approach AI adoption inside the organization. Instead of running isolated experiments with different models and tools, we now have a unified platform to build, orchestrate, and govern AI agents across multiple business workflows.
What stood out for us was the platform's ability to handle enterprise requirements - security, governance, and observability - while still allowing teams to rapidly prototype and deploy AI solutions. SimplAI helped us move from fragmented AI initiatives to a scalable AI operating model
SimplAI is helping us address customer challenges at scale using AI, without the need to build an in-house AI engineering team. Even before going live in production, SimplAI has shown its value through its robust capabilities and consistent support for our goals. Their responsive and dedicated approach has made them a reliable partner in advancing our AI initiatives.
Secure infrastructure alone is not enough. Enterprises need the full stack — governed AI agents running inside a deployment model that never compromises their security posture. Pairing Zeblok’s Ai-MicroCloud with SimplAI’s orchestration layer means enterprises no longer have to choose between capability and control. Furthermore, our ability to offload to Flash memory means significant reduction in GPUs when managing user context.
With SimplAI, Lawyered isn't just embracing AI, we're redefining the legal landscape. By seamlessly integrating cutting-edge technology with our mission to democratize legal access, we're not only streamlining processes but also ensuring data security and privacy. SimplAI isn't just a platform, it's a catalyst for innovation.
Choose the right approach to SOV intake
More operationally complete than extraction-only tooling, and easier to start with than replacing your underwriting stack. Compare on the dimensions that decide the work.
| Dimension | Manual / BPO | Generic document AI | Broad underwriting platform | SimplAI SOV Agent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Broker-format flexibility | Handles anything, at people cost | Varies; often template-tuned | Intake usually one module | Multi-tab workbooks, PDFs and portal exports as received |
| Validation & enrichment | Depends on reviewer discipline | Typically extraction only | Varies by provider | Address standardisation, geocoding, COPE mapping and total reconciliation in one pass |
| Human exception routing | Everything is human work | Typically custom to build | Varies by provider | Written exceptions with severity, owner and proposed resolution |
| Output to existing core | Manual entry or rekeying | Raw fields; mapping is your job | Strongest inside its own stack | Your schedule template plus typed API or file-drop payload |
| Implementation scope | Staffing and training | Integration project per format | Programme-level change | Bounded 30-day proof on your own schedules; no core replacement |
| Auditability | Spreadsheet trail | Varies by provider | Varies by provider | Field-level provenance and a record of every reviewer decision |
Comparison describes common approaches, not named vendors. Capabilities of any specific provider vary — confirm against your own requirements.
Prove it on your SOVs in 30 days.
No long transformation programme. No core replacement. A bounded proof with agreed measures — run on your submissions, your template and your codes.
Agreed sample of sanitized schedules
20–50 recent submissions that reflect your real broker mix, shared under your own data agreement.
Target fields and output template
Your schedule template, construction and occupancy code lists, and the fields that must never be auto-accepted.
Acceptance criteria and baseline measurement
Completeness, turnaround and exception catch rate defined and baselined before the agent runs.
Results review and rollout decision
Measured results against the agreed criteria, the integration path, and a written go / no-go.
Built for a file that has to survive audit
Security
Encryption in transit and at rest, with defined retention windows per environment
Role-based access, SSO and least-privilege separation between tenants
Configurable data residency and deletion on request
Governance
Field-level provenance from output value back to source cell or PDF region
Immutable record of agent output, reviewer decision and final value
Configurable rules for which fields always require human sign-off
Integration
Structured schedule export in your carrier or program template
Delivery into policy administration, rating, cat modelling and data lake targets
Exception payloads routable to your existing workflow or queue tooling
Take the detail back to your team
SOV field mapping specification
The output schema, confidence model and exception taxonomy, field by field.
Request accessSOV data quality checklist for underwriting teams
The checks worth running before a schedule reaches rating or cat modelling.
Get the checklistMeet the team at ITC Vegas
Schedule a working session on your own SOV formats with an underwriting specialist.
See us at ITC Vegas 2026Questions underwriting teams ask first
Multi-tab XLSX workbooks, scanned or native PDF schedules, portal CSV exports and broker cover notes — as received, without asking brokers to switch to a template.
Schedules from a handful of locations to portfolio-scale files with thousands of rows spread across multiple tabs.
The value is reported as unknown with the reason and raised as a written exception with a proposed resolution — never a silent guess or an averaged number.
Against the fields the agent is configured to extract, baselined on your own schedules during the 30-day proof of value using agreed acceptance criteria.
No. The agent removes transcription and arithmetic; underwriters keep the judgment calls that move exposure, with review thresholds you set.
Output is delivered in your carrier or program schedule template plus a typed API or file-drop payload, routable into policy administration, rating, cat modelling and data lake targets.
A bounded 30-day proof of value on 20–50 of your own sanitized schedules, with agreed target fields, output template and acceptance criteria — no core replacement.
Encryption in transit and at rest, defined retention windows, configurable data residency and deletion on request. No SOV data is uploaded through the contact form.
SimplAI is the Operating System for Agentic AI, enabling enterprises to build, orchestrate, govern, and scale AI agents anywhere.
San Francisco
1502, 535 Mission Street, 14th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 USA
Dubai
IH-00-01-03-OF-05, Level 3, DIFC Innovation One, Dubai AI Campus, Dubai, UAE
Gurugram
Plot No. 136, 3rd Floor, Sector 44, Gurugram, Haryana 122003, India
Platform
Industries
Solutions
