About
Built by veterans, for a process that should not require guesswork
VeteransInsights is a veteran-owned technology company. Claim Assistant exists because the information a veteran needs to file a strong claim is public, and effectively unreachable.
Why we built it
The information gap is the whole problem
VA raters work from a rulebook: Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the M21-1 adjudication manual, diagnostic codes, and evidence requirements for each condition. All of it is public.
It is also thousands of pages, and nobody hands a veteran a checklist for their specific condition when they sit down to file. So people file blind, wait months, and find out at the end that one document was missing.
That gap is closeable with software. Most of what has been sold into it so far has made it worse.
The standard we hold ourselves to
An analysis that flatters a veteran is worse than useless. It gets them a denial.
Every design decision in the product follows from that sentence, including the uncomfortable ones.
How the domain logic is built
Expertise first, then engineering
The hard part of this problem is not the machine learning. It is knowing what a rater actually requires, per condition, and encoding that so it can be checked.
Condition rules come from subject-matter experts
Evidence requirements, decision logic, gap rules and false-positive patterns are built with people who have adjudicated claims, not inferred from a model's guess about what a rater wants.
Rules are readable, versioned and tested
Condition specifications are kept as policy a domain expert can read and check, separate from the code that reads documents. Every change runs against a reference corpus first.
Improvements start from a measured failure
A corpus miss, a false positive, a readiness contradiction. A failing test captures it, the fix goes into the lowest correct layer, and the corpus is re-run. We do not patch the output.
What we will not trade away
Three standing rules
Never silently overstate confidence
The system is built so a missing requirement cannot be satisfied by adjacent evidence. If a required study is absent, no score dresses that up.
Show the source, always
A finding that cannot point at a document is not a finding worth reporting.
Say what is not built yet
Capabilities in development are labelled as in development, on the security page and everywhere else. A roadmap presented as a feature list is a lie with good formatting.
Next step
Ask us the hard questions
We would rather be checked than believed.