Custom documents and custom checks

Custom document types are not currently supported

Sealinn currently accepts and requests only certificates of insurance for new compliance documents. Saved settings can still contain W-9, license, safety-card, and customer-defined document names, but those settings do not activate collection, reminders, or status checks.

Custom names do not appear in the request picker or on the subcontractor upload page. If you need a non-COI file, use the secure process your organization has approved outside Sealinn rather than sending it through a COI link. Setting your requirements explains which saved choices currently guide the COI reviewer and which ones remain inactive.

A saved label is not a supported workflow

A document name answers only one question: what your organization would call the item. A supported workflow needs much more — an allowed upload path, file-safety handling, access rules, a review screen, a status model, reminders that use a meaningful date, retention behavior, and clear customer-facing instructions. Sealinn does not currently provide that chain for a W-9, license, safety card, or customer-defined document. Seeing a saved label is therefore not evidence that the rest of the chain exists.

Keep the boundary visible in your own procedure. Tell staff which files belong in Sealinn today, identify the separately approved system for anything else, and avoid copying sensitive tax or identity documents into notes. A COI request link is scoped to a certificate; renaming a custom setting does not broaden what that link is allowed to collect. If an unsupported file arrives through another channel, follow your organization's approved privacy, access, and retention process rather than trying to attach it as a certificate.

A custom COI prompt can be part of the human checklist

You can save a plain-language prompt such as ‘the waiver names our company, not just the project.’ During the current workflow, treat it as a question for the authorized reviewer to answer from the original COI and supporting evidence.

Automated AI document reading is currently unavailable, so a new upload does not receive a new model-generated custom-check verdict. Re-uploading a file does not change that availability boundary.

A check scoped to W-9, license, safety, or a custom type also does not activate that document reader or make its absence count against a subcontractor.

Write a prompt a person can answer from evidence

A useful COI prompt names the evidence and the exact comparison. ‘Is this acceptable?’ is too broad: it hides whether the reviewer is looking at a named insured, a date, a limit, a certificate box, or a separate endorsement. A narrower prompt such as ‘does the named insured match the subcontractor legal name?’ gives the reviewer one fact to compare and makes the resulting note understandable to the next person.

1. 1Name the evidence. Say whether the answer comes from the COI, an attached endorsement, or an external verification source. Do not ask the certificate to prove something it cannot show.
2. 2State the comparison. Identify the customer requirement, project, entity, coverage row, date, or limit involved. Keep legal or coverage-opinion questions with the customer's approved adviser.
3. 3Allow an unknown answer. If the page is blank, unclear, or missing the supporting form, record that uncertainty and request evidence. Do not design a question that forces every file into yes or no.
4. 4Record the customer decision separately. The evidence note says what was found; approve, reject, or accept an exception through the authorized human-review process described in reviewing a certificate.

Historical custom-check results

An authorized historical COI can retain a custom-check result created when automated evaluation was previously used. Preserve it as historical context, compare it with the original evidence, and do not present it as a new or current automated check.

If the customer accepts a gap, record the human decision and reason against that document. Do not edit the evidence so the prompt appears satisfied; an exception should show what the document said and what the customer decided.

If a historical result conflicts with the original file, the original file and the authorized review take priority. Add a current note that identifies the mismatch and the action taken; do not rewrite the older record as though it had always been correct. The audit log explains which recorded actions can be reviewed later, while what Sealinn checks lists the current COI evidence a person should compare.

What would have to change before automation is offered

A future automated custom check would need a deliberate product activation, current provider and privacy disclosures, tested failure behavior, and customer copy that says exactly what the result can and cannot establish. It would also need to preserve the original evidence, show uncertainty, and leave the final customer decision with an authorized person. None of that should be inferred from dormant configuration today. Until an activation is announced in the product, use saved prompts only as human checklist language and treat new automated verdicts as unavailable.