RJL Studio · Demo 3 of 3
Meaning runs the workflow.
The same claim, now prepared by a workflow instead of a single question. Each step uses the approved terms, cites its source and feeds a check. Switch the ontology off for the drafting steps and see what the checks catch.
Synthetic data and a scripted run. The checks are the kind Workflow Studio runs; the decision on the claim stays with the examiner.
Run passed all checks and reached the examiner.
Step 1
Identify the parties
Claimant: Dana Reyes (P-217), from the claims system. Policyholder: Northfield Logistics (P-100), from policy administration. Kept as separate roles.
Customer: Northfield Logistics (P-100), from the policy record. The claimant and the employer are treated as the same customer.
Source: claims_system.claims CL-9055 member_id; policy_administration.policies GP-2201
Source: policy_administration.policies GP-2201, customer_id. No approved terms given to this step.
ClaimantPolicyholder
Step 2
Select the procedure
DC-PROC v4, in force on the policy date of 15 January 2026.
DC-PROC v5, the newest approved version.
Source: procedure_library DC-PROC v4 and v5; policy_date 2026-01-15
Source: procedure_library, newest version. No approved terms given to this step.
Applicable procedurePolicy date
Step 3
Gather prior claims
2 prior claims for the claimant: CL-7012 and CL-8130.
41 prior claims under policy GP-2201, including 39 filed by other employees.
Source: claims_system.claims, filtered by member_id P-217 (the claimant)
Source: claims_system.claims, filtered by policy GP-2201 (the customer’s policy). No approved terms given to this step.
Prior claimsGroup policy
Step 4
Check the draft
3 of 3 checks pass: roles match the approved definitions, the procedure was in force on the policy date, and every listed claim belongs to the claimant.
2 of 3 checks fail: 39 listed claims belong to people who are not parties to this claim, and the procedure was not in force on the policy date.
Source: Checks generated from the approved terms
Checked against: Prior claimsApplicable procedure
Step 5
Examiner review
The examiner reviews a cited case summary and accepts it. The decision on the claim stays with the examiner.
The draft is blocked before review. It cannot reach the examiner with other people’s claims on it.
Source: Review record
The point
An approved term becomes a check you can run.
Once “prior claims” means the claimant’s own claims, a workflow can test every draft against it and stop the one that lists other people’s claims. Give the ontology to the drafting steps and the draft is right first time. Give it to the checks as well and a wrong draft can’t reach the examiner. Without it in either place, this draft would have gone straight through.