Background
The supplier’s production and quality operations remained stable, but warranty reserves had increased by 18% over two years.
Finance teams traced much of this growth to uncontested claims: OEM chargebacks that were accepted because the warranty team could not retrieve and correlate supporting production evidence before the response deadline.
The required data already existed. Warranty records identified the affected component; ERP records contained production batches; MES data documented inspection results; and procurement files linked each batch to supplier component lots. Different identifiers, schemas, and ownership structures prevented the information from being combined efficiently.
As claim volumes increased, manual investigation became economically unsustainable. Engineers prioritized the largest or most obvious cases, while many potentially disputable claims were absorbed as warranty costs.
Approach to solution
During the initial audit, Computools mapped claim identifiers, component serial numbers, production batches, test records, supplier lots, timestamps, and dispute outcomes.
The audit defined the minimum data required to produce a defensible evidence package and identified instances of inconsistent identifiers or missing relationships that prevented automated correlation.
Computools then built an integration layer on top of the existing systems. APIs and ETL pipelines connected the warranty platform, ERP, MES, and procurement sources despite differences in identifiers, formats, and update cycles. A shared data model aligned OEM part numbers, internal material codes, production batches, inspection windows, and supplier lots, linking every claim to its supporting records.
Validation rules identified incomplete mappings, duplicate records, inconsistent timestamps, and missing traceability links before evidence packages reached warranty engineers.
Each new claim automatically triggered evidence collection. Engineers received a consolidated package containing the relevant batch history, inspection results, supplier lots, timestamps, and source references.
Machine learning classified claims by estimated dispute probability. The score supported workload prioritization, while the model did not automatically approve, reject, or submit disputes.
Computools role
Computools acted as the end-to-end delivery partner and was responsible for:
- auditing warranty, ERP, MES, and procurement data architectures;
- designing the integration layer and data normalization framework;
- building the claim-to-evidence correlation engine;
- developing AI-assisted dispute probability classification;
- creating OEM-aligned evidence package formats;
- delivering analyst training and post-launch optimization support.
The team worked with stakeholders from warranty, quality, manufacturing, procurement, finance, and IT to align the platform with OEM requirements and existing operational processes.
Key decisions and outcomes
The architecture preserved the client’s ERP, MES, warranty, and procurement systems while adding a shared evidence layer on top of them. This reduced implementation risk, avoided production downtime, and supported delivery within the 120-day roadmap.
The AI component was limited to dispute probability scoring and claim prioritization. Engineers retained responsibility for evidence review and dispute submission, reducing automation risk while improving the allocation of specialist capacity.
ClaimMatrix Auto reduced average response time from 2.8 days to under four hours and lowered manual analysis effort by 52%. These improvements helped the supplier reduce unjustified warranty exposure by 47% and protect $4.2 million in annual margin without expanding the warranty team.