Claim Dispute Bundle Assembly

Note (dated 2026-08-04): a chain composes independent computations performed in an analytical order. No step's output is carried into the next step by the execution model; each step computes from its own declared inputs. This is true of every chain on this site, including chains whose per-step copy below reads as a data handoff.

Two-step agent-insurability evidence flow: score an agent execution evidence bundle for underwriter-facing evidence completeness, then build a two-sided replay-challenge dossier for a disputed execution_claim, optionally testing a warranty KPI breach.

OpenChainGraph · 2 Steps compliance mandate Hash-Anchored §4 chain_depth:2 Client-Side · Zero PII

This scores evidence completeness and builds a replayable claim record only, never an insurability decision, a reserve attestation, or a settlement decision. Selling or underwriting insurance is out of scope. The dossier serves both the underwriter and the insured party reviewing the same replay instructions. Not legal or insurance advice.

Chain Stages · 2 Steps

1 ROOT node

Agent Insurability Evidence Scorer art-306-agent-insurability-evidence-scorer

composite and dims feed Stage 2 as evidence-completeness context for the dispute bundle

MCP Call · score_agent_insurability_evidence

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "name": "score_agent_insurability_evidence",
    "arguments": {
        "underwriter_profile": "aiuc",
        "execution_claims": [
            {
                "execution_hash": "sha256:",
                "human_oversight": true
            }
        ],
        "receipts": [
            {
                "receipt_hash": "sha256:"
            }
        ]
    }
  },
  "id": 1
}

↓

2 TERMINAL node

Claim Dispute Bundle Builder art-307-claim-dispute-bundle-builder

Builds the replay-challenge dossier, optionally testing a warranty_kpi_breach, final stage

MCP Call · build_claim_dispute_bundle

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "name": "build_claim_dispute_bundle",
    "arguments": {
        "execution_claim": {
            "execution_hash": "sha256:",
            "tool_id": "art-251-compute-parametric-trigger-payout",
            "receipts": [
                {
                    "receipt_hash": "sha256:"
                }
            ]
        },
        "challenge": {
            "digest": "sha256:"
        }
    }
  },
  "id": 2
}

Question: A policyholder disputes our denial and points at the uptime warranty. Does the assembled bundle prove a KPI breach? Run the AINumbers MCP tool `run_chain` with {"chain":"claim-dispute-bundle-assembly"} and read `art-307-claim-dispute-bundle-builder.kpi_breach.breached`. Re-run with `inputs` for `art-307-claim-dispute-bundle-builder`, reusing the values that result echoed, with `warranty_kpi_breach` changed so measured_metric is 99.9, above the 99.5 threshold. Compare the same field. Verify: call `verify_execution_hash` (https://mcp.ainumbers.co/mcp) with `claimed_hash` set to `composite_execution_hash` and the full `composite_artifact`. Ledger, for a human re-check: https://ledger.ainumbers.co/ PII rule: send synthetic or anonymised inputs only. The MCP server runs these kernels and logs no payloads. Chain page: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/chains/claim-dispute-bundle-assembly.html

Claim Dispute Bundle Assembly

Ask your agent