Lumen

AI subrogation recovery, built on Band.

Eight specialist agents argue both sides of a subrogation claim in a real Band room. A six-gate harness — in code, not prompt — verifies the math and the evidence. Recovery in three minutes.

ForP&C recovery teams·Built onBand·LicenseMIT

Eight specialists.
One Band room.

8 agents · 4 family A · 4 family B
A
Adjudicator A
decides fault & recovery, shows the math
B
Adjudicator B
independent re-decision, different family
V
Verifier
audits every cited claim against its source
D
Drafter
writes the demand letter
L
Liability Advocate
argues for our insured
R
Opposing Carrier
red-teams — attacks our case
I
Intake Parser
extracts parties, date, damages from FNOL
E
Evidence Aggregator
builds the typed Evidence Ledger
Family A · Claude · 4 agents
Family B · GPT · 4 agents

Cross-family by design — the Advocate and the Opposing red team are on different model families, and the two Adjudicators each draw their conclusion independently before either sees the other’s answer. Anti-collusion is built into the seating chart, not the prompt.

Hover a seat
The gap

Your insured wasn’t at fault.
You paid the claim.
The at-fault carrier should pay you back.

$1520 B

left uncollected every year, across the U.S. P&C industry.

That clawback is called subrogation. The work is slow, document-heavy, and manual — police reports, repair bills, statutes, fault percentages, demand letters drafted by hand.

So insurers drop about half the recoverable cases they could pursue. The money just sits there.

Verification

Six independent checks, in code.

Every gate is a written check, not a prompt. As you read down, each fires in turn — the harness refuses anything that isn’t cited, anchored, or mathematically consistent.

  1. I
    Gate No. 01

    Citation Gate

    Every argued point must cite a real fact or statute id. Uncited claims are rejected on the spot.

  2. II
    Gate No. 02

    Fact Gate

    Every quoted fact must be a contiguous substring of a real source document. Anchors the ledger to real text.

  3. III
    Gate No. 03

    Math Gate

    Recomputes the fault percentages from the adjudicator’s own fault table. If the math drifts, the verdict is rejected.

  4. IV
    Gate No. 04

    Consensus Gate

    The two adjudicators must agree to within ten points. If they don’t, the case escalates to a human reviewer.

  5. V
    Gate No. 05

    Source Alignment

    An independent reviewer checks whether each cited fact actually supports the claim — supported, neutral, or overreach.

  6. VI
    Gate No. 06

    Letter Reconciliation

    The drafted demand letter must contain the final fault percentage and dollar amount. The number on the page must match the verdict.

A live run

Three minutes,
upload to letter.

Real Band-room postings from the Rivera case, replayed below. Mono prefix per agent role; family A on warm sand, family B on brass; gate verdicts on the right margin of each line.

Band room a87f1c · Rivera v. Blakecase-uuid · 38b1…7e09
LA
Vehicle 2 entered the intersection against a red signal. F3 CVC-21453
RT
Witness speed estimate is low-confidence and uncorroborated. F2Citation OK
AA
Other-driver fault at 85%. Reasoning: red-light violation is the proximate cause. F3 F5
AB
Independent verdict — 88% other-driver fault, within consensus band.Math · Consensus OK
Replaying — postings stream in cadenceAudit hash · bf2a4e91…c91e
Two endings

A system that wins every case is broken.

Lumen knows when to walk away. The same eight agents and six gates, run twice — one case clears for recovery, the other closes for lack of merit.

Rivera v. Blake
No. CLM-2026-0427 · CA · red-light T-bone
Recovery
$35,700
Other-driver fault
85%
Recommend recovery — please review

Six gates cleared. Adjudicators within four points. Demand letter drafted. Routed to a human because the recovery exceeds the $25k review threshold.

Carter v. Lee
No. CLM-2026-0588 · CA · following too closely
Recovery
$1,980
Other-driver fault
11%
Recommend closing the file

Our insured rear-ended a stopped vehicle. Recovery below pursuit threshold; fault share below 25%. Not worth the cost of chasing.

Everyone else decides whether to pay. Lumen gets the money back.

— Subrogation, the work nobody automates
Lumen — built on Band.

A subrogation recovery officer that argues both sides of a case, verifies the math in code, and walks away from the ones that aren’t worth the chase. Submitted to the Band of Agents Hackathon · MIT licensed · open source.

tamper-evident seal · bf2a4e91…c91e© 2026 · No. CLM-2026-0427 on record