AI or offshore MGA intake? Compare the file your underwriter can use

Agree on the output before comparing the routes

An accepted preparation record gives the underwriter the facts and sources needed for the next decision. It includes the submission’s identity, the applicable program and rule version, proposed values with source locations, and any missing or conflicting information with an owner. Acceptance means the preparation is usable. The authorized underwriter still decides whether to quote, decline or bind within the authority the carrier has granted.

For our twenty-submission example, suppose one application has a mailing address but no insured premises location. If the program needs the premises to check territory, a completed address field is not enough. The accepted record needs to show that the required location is missing and assign the follow-up. Otherwise, the underwriter must discover the mistake and send the file back, so the apparent saving becomes another correction loop.

Have the underwriting lead approve those expected outputs before the routes see the test. Include complete files, missing information, conflicting attachments, duplicate submissions and evidenced fit problems from the program’s actual work. Keep each route’s input documents and rule versions identical. Reserve this final sample from configuration and training so a route has to handle work it hasn’t already been tuned to pass.

Use a common test cutoff and record every assigned file, including those left unresolved. An incomplete submission can have a correctly accepted preparation record if the missing fact and next action are accurately recorded. But a route that simply drops difficult submissions hasn’t completed the same job. Our MGA triage guide explains how to keep missing information separate from poor fit.

Give every route the same job and access limits

Start with the current team’s actual workflow, then ask its system owner whether existing configuration can remove the repeated work. If a field mapping or review queue solves the problem, include that improved version as another candidate. This prevents a new product from winning only because the comparison left a simple repair out of the baseline.

An offshore provider needs the same approved instructions, output fields and exception owner. Ask who resolves a contradictory attachment, when the file returns to your team, and which work the quoted fee includes. Count your coordination and correction time even when the provider doesn’t charge for its own rework, because your staff still spend that time getting an acceptable file.

For the AI route, supply the permitted broker email, attachments and later replies alongside the approved program rules. AI proposes values and source locations. Fixed checks can verify required fields and allowed codes, while a named reviewer resolves ambiguity and accepts the record. Missing evidence stays missing. A new reply updates the same submission rather than creating a second unconnected file.

Have your data and risk owners approve each route’s access, processing location, retention and use of submitted data before sharing records. Give each route equivalent permitted inputs in a test environment. If a route cannot operate within those approved conditions, remove it from the comparison before cost becomes a reason to overlook the gap.

You now have a defined piece of work to price, with its remaining human responsibilities visible. For an MGA seeking profitable growth, that helps show whether intake deserves the next investment or whether a different part of the business is holding progress back.

* Eight-week delivery, or twelve weeks when substantial data foundations are required, as agreed before work begins. If a covered stage fails its agreed benchmarks, we provide up to four additional weeks of remedy work at no charge, then waive or refund that stage’s fee if it still fails. Successfully delivered stages remain payable. Agreed client-caused delays pause the clock. Delivery guarantee terms.

Count the review and correction that the first pass leaves behind

Start the elapsed clock when the submission reaches the route and stop it when the preparation is accepted. Log active work separately: preparation or coordination, first review, and correction. Waiting can delay a response without consuming staff time, while correction can consume staff time even when the file comes back quickly. You need both measures to judge service and cost.

Keep the final review standard the same across routes. Where practical, hide the route’s identity from reviewers and vary review order so familiarity with one file doesn’t make a later route look easier. Record errors before correction as well as the accepted result. Otherwise, a route with serious first-pass errors can look as accurate as another because your underwriter repaired everything before you counted it.

In this illustration, assume all twenty files in each route meet the agreed preparation standard and service deadline, with no critical errors. The internal operations rate is $40 an hour and the underwriting review rate is $120 an hour, both including employment costs. The fees and times below are invented teaching inputs. Replace them with your quotes, measured effort and expected volume.

Calculate each route’s cost as internal time by role multiplied by that role’s hourly cost, plus the external or technology fee. The offshore fee includes the provider’s preparation labor, so don’t add that labor again. The AI fee includes its allocated license, processing and routine technical support at the assumed volume. Add any recurring cost your quote leaves out. The displayed totals round to cents.

For AI, three operations minutes cost $2 and six reviewer minutes cost $12. Add the $3 fee and the accepted preparation costs $17. But suppose conflicting attachments increase its correction time from two minutes to eight. Review plus correction now takes twelve minutes, which costs $24. With the same $2 operations effort and $3 fee, AI costs $29 per file. Offshore becomes the lowest recurring-cost route in this example because the extra checking work outweighs AI’s lower fee.

That is why the comparison ends at accepted work. A low extraction price can survive the first screen and disappear at the reviewer’s desk.

Apply quality and service requirements before choosing the lowest cost

Have the underwriting owner define critical errors before testing. A fabricated source, a missed conflict that changes the proposed route, or a fit decision made without the required fact can require a failed test even when the rest of the fields are correct. Count those failures separately from minor corrections so a good average cannot conceal the kind of error the owner has ruled unacceptable.

Set the acceptable agreement with reference decisions, the unresolved-file treatment and the service deadline in advance too. Report how many assigned files meet each requirement and show the slow or unresolved cases alongside the average. A route that passes on clean documents but fails on the program’s common exceptions needs repair before expansion. Recheck repaired behavior on fresh held-out files.

Our twenty-file example illustrates the comparison, not a universal sample size. Your underwriting owner chooses enough representative work to cover the program’s material failure types. Before expanding, run the passing route in parallel with the current process through the volume patterns it must support, including a realistic peak. Keep actual underwriting decisions with the authorized team during that trial.

Then put transition costs beside recurring costs: configuration, integration, training, parallel operation and any exit work. A small recurring advantage may take too long to recover those costs at your volume. If the existing team wins or the alternatives fail, keep the current route and address the specific issue the test found.

Be precise about what the apparent saving buys. Lower staff effort is capacity if payroll stays unchanged. Finance can recognize a cash saving when a payable cost actually goes away, or assess additional contribution when the freed capacity supports profitable work. Don’t turn the difference between two resource-cost figures into a profit forecast without that next step.

Use one comparison card to fund the next trial

Copy this card once per submission and route. The operations owner records the handoffs and times, the underwriting reviewer records quality and acceptance, and finance supplies the rates and fees. The worked column shows one illustrative AI file. Aggregate every assigned file using the same cutoff, and keep rejected or unresolved work visible beside the accepted-file cost.

Use the completed comparison to approve one bounded trial with a named owner, a budget and a stop condition. In the first version of our example, AI earns that next test. When correction time rises, offshore earns it instead, provided quality, service and transition costs still support the choice. The result is an allocation decision your team can explain, rather than a technology preference it has to defend.

If accepted preparation still has to be rebuilt for monthly reports, use the shared-record guide to inspect that handoff before approving a larger intake build. Paying for faster preparation won’t remove reporting work that still starts again from the source documents.

Choosing an intake route can release underwriting attention, but its value depends on what your business most needs to achieve next. If you want help deciding where to invest for your biggest growth goal, the next conversation starts with that goal and the work limiting it.

* Eight-week delivery, or twelve weeks when substantial data foundations are required, as agreed before work begins. If a covered stage fails its agreed benchmarks, we provide up to four additional weeks of remedy work at no charge, then waive or refund that stage’s fee if it still fails. Successfully delivered stages remain payable. Agreed client-caused delays pause the clock. Delivery guarantee terms.