ActuariAI

ActuariAI

What a contract requires.
What the evidence licenses.

ActuariAI turns contractual thresholds into explicit decision requirements, tests whether the available evidence can support them, and refuses conclusions the evidence cannot carry.

Explore the demonstrator Discuss a decision

The distinction

A verdict is not an explanation.

A settlement can determine whether a threshold was cleared and how much was paid. It cannot, by itself, establish what caused the result. ActuariAI keeps those questions separate—then makes the consequence of that distinction visible.

Two proofs

Two legitimate answers from one architecture.

Medicare ACOContract

$4.29M

A decision consequence turns on the classification.

For one unnamed public CMS example, the contract fixes a causal-necessity requirement and a $4.29 million attribution discontinuity. It does not fix the causal truth.

Requirement observed · causal answer unresolved

Explore the boundary →
Consumer lendingEvidence

40,000 observations

And still, zero of four strata can be estimated.

A four-tier pricing rule assigned treatment so consistently that no tier retained a usable within-tier comparison. More records from the same rule would not restore the missing support.

Estimation refused · 0 of 4

See why the answer is no →

Having a decision and having data does not mean the evidence licenses the answer.

The assurance chain

A system that knows when to stop.

Every step can refuse. A refusal stops the chain, names the binding limitation, and states what kind of evidence or design could change the answer.

  1. 01

    Characterize

    Where does a usable comparison still exist?

  2. 02

    Design

    What is the causal-necessity requirement?

  3. 03

    Price

    What turns on that requirement economically?

  4. 04

    Identify

    What can be estimated under the declared design?

  5. 05

    Compare

    Is the conclusion licensed, ruled out, or unresolved?

Experience the chain →

Perspectives

When the verdict is not enough.

A contract can produce a definitive settlement while leaving the reliability or attribution of that result unresolved. Perspectives develops the ideas in plain language—without turning the homepage into a methods paper.

Read the perspectives →
“Knowing exactly what must be proved does not mean the available evidence can prove it.”

Research in progress

The papers carry the evidentiary burden.

Formal and empirical work on contractual attribution boundaries, settlement reliability, and identification under consumed support. Every item is labeled by its actual research status.

Review the research →

Private engagement

What turns on the answer in your contract?

The demonstrator uses embedded examples. A private run begins with your contract, evidence, assumptions, and decision—and produces a defensible saved record.

Discuss the decision