Insurance · Composite and life insurance, Europe

Hosting and cost architecture for an AI claims-review platform

Starting point

A European composite and life insurer planned to bring an established AI platform for claims review in-house. Two questions stood open: which hosting model and what risk reserves to plan for. Tenant choice, cost level, compliance depth. Approval from risk, compliance and IT architecture depended on defensible answers — not on option papers.

What we did

We mapped three hosting options against the insurer's compliance matrix and the regulatory context, then issued a recommendation. In parallel, a cost model covering ramp-up and full operation, with risk reserves. Disciplines deployed: cloud architecture, compliance mapping (DORA, C5, GDPR), FinOps. Duration: under eight weeks, small core team.

Results

< 8 weeks

hosting decision incl. compliance mapping

hosting options compared in depth (customer tenant, vendor tenant, hybrid)

100 %

cost transparency across ramp-up and full operation

open compliance items at the go/no-go meeting

What we learned

Rolling a platform out to the second customer is not a copy of the first. The raw materials — architecture, models, prompts — carry over. The hosting and compliance decision is a fresh call each time: tenant boundaries, risk reserves and regulatory context differ. Replication is engineering, not copy-paste.

This is the summary. How we approached it methodologically — which architectural decisions we made, what we discarded and which patterns can be transferred to other contexts — we discuss in a personal conversation.

Not because we want to sell you something. But because this depth is what our clients engage us for — and it does not belong on the open internet.