Quote Intake Completeness

Challenges Quote Intake Completeness addresses

Done by hand, pricing and quotes means gathering quote request and what pricing needs, working through 3 separate passes over the same material, then producing can this be priced?, what pricing needs and questions — approve before sending. None of it is difficult and all of it is exacting, which is the combination people are worst at holding. The errors that matter are the ones a tired reader does not notice, and they surface later — in a reconciliation, or in somebody’s reply. It starts whenever something arrives, which means someone has to be watching for it to start at all. As volume grows the work does not get harder, only longer, and the first thing to go is the checking.

Quote Intake Completeness runs that same sequence end to end and returns the result as structured artefacts. What it cannot settle it hands over rather than guesses at, and your correction is kept: it asks “Were these the right questions?” after every run, and those answers become the set it is measured against. Nothing that moves money, alters a contract or reaches a customer executes without human approval, and every action is written to an audit log. The gain is in the volume that no longer has to be read, not in removing the judgement.

How it works

Step 1: Checking the request

First of 3. It works from quote request and what pricing needs and feeds the step after it.

Key Tasks:

• Running the checks in order: Every rule for pricing and quotes is applied to every record, in the same order each run. A record is not skipped because it looks routine.
• Recording evidence, not verdicts: Each check stores what was expected and what was found, so a failure can be understood without re-running anything.
• Separating clear from unclear: A check the agent cannot settle is marked unresolved rather than passed, which keeps "checked" meaning checked.

Outcome:

• All checks pass: The record clears with its evidence attached, available if anyone asks later.
• A check fails: The record is held with the failing checks named and the rest shown as passed, so a reviewer sees the scope of the problem rather than only that there is one.

Step 2: Drafting the questions

Step 2 of 3. It takes what step 1 produced and hands its result to step 3.

Key Tasks:

• Writing from the run, not from a template: The text is built from what this run actually found, so two pricing and quotes outputs differ where the underlying records differ.
• Leading with what needs a decision: The exceptions come first and the routine detail follows, because the reader is deciding rather than reading.
• Staying inside the evidence: Nothing appears in the text that is not supported by a record the run examined. Gaps are stated as gaps.

Outcome:

• Draft ready: It is held for approval. Nothing reaches a customer, a calendar or a channel until a person releases it.
• Not enough to write from: It says so instead of producing something plausible from thin evidence, which is the failure that is hardest to catch on review.

Step 3: Preparing the reply for approval

Last of 3. It takes what step 2 produced and produces can this be priced? and what pricing needs.

Key Tasks:

• Producing the reply for approval: What this step assembles is the reply for approval, in the form the reader actually uses it in rather than as a general summary of the run.
• Keeping it traceable: Each claim stays linked to the record behind it, so a reviewer can check a line instead of accepting the whole.
• Writing from the run, not from a template: The text is built from what this run actually found, so two pricing and quotes outputs differ where the underlying records differ.

Outcome:

• Held for release: It is complete and waiting on a person. Nothing reaches a customer, a calendar or a channel until someone approves it.
• Insufficient evidence: It says so rather than assembling something plausible from thin material, which is the failure hardest to catch on review.

Step 4: Your review, and what it changes

The run ends with a person, not with a result being filed.

Key Tasks:

• Asking a specific question: It asks “Were these the right questions?” rather than for a rating. A question about this run is answerable; a score out of five is not.
• Keeping the correction: What you change is recorded against the case that produced it, so the disagreement is retrievable rather than absorbed.
• Building the evaluation set: Those cases become what the agent is measured on. It is scored against your judgement rather than against a general benchmark.

Outcome:

• A measured agent, not an assumed one: The cases Quote Intake Completeness handles well and the cases it does not are both visible, and the second list is the one that decides what changes. Nothing is retrained silently on the back of a single correction.

Why use Quote Intake Completeness?

• Nothing leaves without approval: Questions — approve before sending is drafted and held. A person releases them, so the agent's reach ends at your own review step.
• Checks are evidenced, not asserted: Each check records what was expected and what was found. A failure can be understood — and argued with — without re-running anything.
• Works from the message itself: The body and its attachments are the input, so a request does not have to be transcribed into a form before anything can happen to it.
• Starts from the message itself: A matching message in the connected inbox is the trigger, so nothing sits in a queue waiting to be noticed. Messages that do not match are left alone rather than processed and discarded.
• Corrected by the people using it: After each run it asks “Were these the right questions?”. Those answers become the evaluation set, which means it is measured against your judgement rather than ours.