Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- claim_contract_resolution [2025/09/18 17:50] – tina.robles
+++ claim_contract_resolution [2025/09/18 18:03] (current) – tina.robles
@@ Line 104: / Line 104: @@
   * Reduced manual review time for obvious matches
   * Foundation established for Phase 2 automation capabilities
+{{:pasted:20250918-175201.png}}
+{{:pasted:20250918-175229.png}}
+**Scoring Framework Overview**
+The scoring algorithm employs a comprehensive point-based system where each successfully matched field contributes to the overall compatibility score between contracts and claims. The methodology distinguishes between header-level and detail-level matching criteria to ensure accurate assessment across all contract dimensions.
+__Scoring Architecture__
+**Point Allocation System**
+  * Base Scoring: 1 point awarded per successfully matched field
+  * Header-Level Scoring: Binary scoring (0 or 1) for company-level attributes
+  * Detail-Level Scoring: Proportional scoring (0.0 to 1.0) representing percentage match of claim elements against contract definitions
+__Scoring Criteria & Calculations__
+**Header-Level Matches**
+{{:pasted:20250918-175821.png}}
+**Score Interpretation**
+  * Higher Scores: Indicate stronger contract-to-claim compatibility
+  * Composite Scoring: Total score represents cumulative match strength across all evaluated criteria
+  * Decimal Precision: Detail-level scores provide granular matching insights for partial alignments
+**Implementation Roadmap**
+Phase 1: Foundation
+  * Deploy scoring algorithm for manual matching enhancement
+  * Establish baseline scoring metrics and validation
+Phase 2: Analytics & Optimization
+  * Conduct comprehensive analysis of matching outcomes versus scoring patterns
+  * Identify optimal score thresholds for automated decision-making
+  * Validate scoring accuracy through historical data correlation
+Phase 3: Automation
+  * Implement client-configurable score thresholds for automated matching
+  * Deploy intelligent auto-matching capabilities based on validated scoring criteria
+  * Establish monitoring and continuous improvement protocols
+**Expected Benefits**
+  * Enhanced Accuracy: Quantitative scoring reduces subjective matching decisions
+  * Scalability: Systematic approach enables future automation capabilities
+  * Transparency: Clear scoring methodology provides audit trail for matching decisions
+  * Customization: Client-specific thresholds accommodate varying risk tolerances and business requirements
+This scoring methodology establishes a robust foundation for intelligent contract matching while maintaining the flexibility to adapt to diverse client requirements and operational scenarios.
 -----

Telus TPM Documentation

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools