Buying field note
How to test COI software with one real certificate
A polished demo can hide the part that matters: whether the system reaches the same conclusion you would, shows its work, and gives you a clean way out when it is wrong.
Use one certificate you already understand, write down the expected result before uploading it, and grade the product on evidence, exceptions, correction, export, and deletion—not on how quickly the progress bar moves.
Key takeaways
- Write the answer key first. A test is not useful if the software gets to define success after it sees the document.
- Include one deliberate exception. A clean certificate only proves the happy path; a buyer needs to see what happens when a name, limit, date, or endorsement requirement does not line up.
- Ask for the evidence behind the result. A green badge without the extracted fields, rule result, source document, and review history is a conclusion you cannot audit.
- Finish with export and deletion. The product should be evaluated as a place you may eventually leave, not only as a place you may join.
By the Sealinn team · 5 min read · Published August 22, 2026 · Written for general contractors evaluating COI software
Editorial note: Written from Sealinn's current public product boundaries and reviewed against ACORD, NIST, and FTC primary sources. It makes no customer, time-saved, or accuracy-rate claim.
Pick a certificate that can expose the whole workflow
Do not begin with the cleanest sample the vendor sends you. Use a certificate from your own files that you are authorized to upload and whose answer you already know. A useful sample has at least two policies, a real expiry date, a named-insured spelling that can be checked against your subcontractor record, and one requirement the certificate alone cannot prove. If you need a safe first pass, redact information that is irrelevant to the test and review the vendor's security and data-handling explanation before sending the original.
- Choose a certificate with general liability and auto or workers' compensation, so the product has more than one policy row to read.
- Record the named insured exactly as it appears and the legal name you expected. A punctuation difference is not the same as a different entity, and the software should not pretend otherwise.
- Include a requirement that normally depends on an endorsement, such as additional-insured status. The right result is often not proven by this certificate, not a confident pass.
- Keep the original PDF or image beside you. You need to compare fields and conclusions against the document, not against the vendor's transcription of it.
Write the answer key before the upload
Create a one-page answer key with the facts you can read directly and the conclusions that require another document or a person. Separate extraction from compliance. A system can copy a $1,000,000 limit correctly and still reach the wrong conclusion if your requirement is $2,000,000. It can also read an additional-insured box and still be unable to prove that the endorsement names your company. What Sealinn checks uses that same distinction: document facts first, rule results second, and an explicit limitation where the file cannot establish the answer.
| Question | Record before upload | What a credible product should show |
|---|---|---|
| What is printed? | Named insured, carriers, policy numbers, dates, limits and checked boxes | The extracted value, where it came from, and any low-confidence field |
| What meets my rule? | Pass, fail, expiring soon, or needs another document | The requirement and the comparison that produced the status |
| What is not proved? | Endorsements, live policy status, entity identity, or other off-certificate facts | A limitation or review task—not a fabricated answer |
| What needs correction? | The field or decision you intentionally expect to challenge | A correction path that preserves who changed what and when |
Run five tests, not one upload
- Upload and inspect. Confirm the file you supplied is the file attached to the record, then compare every material extracted field with the original.
- Apply your actual requirements. Enter the limits, document types, holder wording, or project override you really use. A generic vendor rule set is not your test.
- Force an exception. Change one requirement or correct one extracted value. Watch whether the system explains the new status and records the correction.
- Follow the next action. Send a controlled request to an address you own, preview the reminder, or inspect the queue without contacting a real subcontractor unexpectedly.
- Leave with the record. Export the subcontractor, document facts, status, and history. Then read the deletion process and ask which provider copies may remain for a documented retention period.
Grade evidence, not animation
The score is not how many fields flash green. It is whether another person can reconstruct the decision later. Ask to see the source file, extracted facts, requirements in force at the time, exception reason, correction history, notification history, and export. Then compare the result with the public accuracy and review boundaries and the plan you would actually buy on the pricing page. If a limitation appears only after checkout, it was not part of the product evaluation.
Do not accept a context-free accuracy percentage
An accuracy number is useful only with the test set, field definitions, document mix, matching rule, review policy, and date. NIST treats measurement and evaluation as ongoing parts of AI risk management, and the FTC has acted against unsupported AI accuracy claims. A vendor that has not run a representative, reproducible benchmark should say so instead of manufacturing a percentage.
A compact scorecard for the buying decision
| Area | Pass when | Stop when |
|---|---|---|
| Reading | Material fields match the original and uncertainty is visible | A wrong or blank field is presented as certain |
| Rules | The result names the requirement and the document fact it used | A badge appears without an inspectable comparison |
| Review | A person can correct a field or decision with history preserved | Correction overwrites the original without an audit trail |
| Communication | You can preview, control recipients, and stop messages | The demo contacts a real person without a clear confirmation |
| Portability | Useful records and files export in ordinary formats | Leaving requires rebuilding the history by hand |
| Claims | Published promises match the behavior you observed | The sales claim is broader than the product or its evidence |
Two questions before you decide
Should I test with more than one certificate?
Can I use Sealinn's free reader for this test?
A serious evaluation should make the product easier to distrust intelligently. When a vendor shows what the document proves, what the software inferred, and what still needs a person, you can decide whether the workflow is useful without pretending the software is infallible.
Where this comes from
- ACORD — ACORD Forms
- National Institute of Standards and Technology — Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework
- Federal Trade Commission — Final order concerning unsupported AI accuracy claims
Run the test with a certificate you already understand.
Use the free reader first, then create a workspace only if the result earns the next test.