Every claims payment proven to have landed where it was agreed; the duplicate, the reversal and the payment that never cleared surfaced in time to act. Brisc squares claims money out four ways: the claims bordereau row, the payment file, the bank statement and the payment-rail status.
Matching is the mechanism. What finance signs off on is the point.
Settlement is confirmed by the payment rail and the bank statement; an instruction alone proves nothing.
The control that assumes something got through: duplicates, wrong-amount payments and reversals surface with evidence attached.
Every payment carries its checkpoints, the rule that matched it and its source documents.
Every claims payment is squared against four records. Three-way reconciliation stops at the bank statement; claims money needs the fourth corner.
What was agreed on the claim.
What your team instructed.
What actually left the account.
What the rail says happened to it.
Deterministic rules, strongest evidence first, each match recording the rule that made it. The same discipline as premium matching, pointed at money out.
Non-claims bank activity is auto-cleared, so the queue only ever holds claims money.
Customer reference, payment number and bordereau row agree to the cent, and the rail confirms the money landed.
The references agree but the amount does not; wrong-amount payments surface instead of hiding.
The claim number is pulled from the bank narrative itself, disambiguated by amount, then by date.
When references fail, an exact amount inside a short date window still finds its payment.
Returned, stopped and cancelled payments are paired with the money coming back.
The payee in the bank narrative against the payment-file payee, and only at an exact amount.
Ranked candidates are computed for everything unmatched, so your reviewer starts from a shortlist.
Unmatched payments carry their statutory prompt-pay deadline while the clock is still running.
Promised, issued, settled, cleared: recorded on every payment, so you see where each one sits.
Exceptions queue with the Analyst’s reasoning and source documents attached.
Bank statements, remittances and bordereaux matched to policy, layer or treaty, posted back with evidence.
Explore bank reconciliation →One Analyst, two directions of money, one rule base.
See the Reconciliation Analyst →Direction, and one extra corner. Premium in is matched across statement, remittance and obligation; claims out adds the payment-rail status, which confirms the payment actually landed. Same engine, same evidence rules: see bank reconciliation.
Never. Brisc reconciles what your payment rails and bank accounts report; it does not initiate, hold, or move a payment. Your rails, your treasury, your approvals.
It stays visible instead of vanishing. The ordered checkpoints show where it stopped, the statutory prompt-pay deadline is stamped on it while the clock is still running, and it sits in the review queue with ranked near-miss candidates attached.
A dedicated rule set pairs them with the money coming back, so a reversal never masquerades as a settled claim and a reissued payment starts its own evidence trail.
Reconciliation is a post-settlement control. Screening tools score payments before money moves; the Analyst proves what actually happened afterwards. Duplicates, wrong-amount payments, reversals masquerading as settled claims, and payments that never cleared surface as exceptions with the evidence attached.
Rules. The ladder is deterministic and every match records the rule that made it. AI reads the bank narratives and payment files and argues the borderline cases in the review queue; it never decides a match.
No. You cannot make banks send tidy narratives or rails report in your schema, which is exactly why the Analyst reads the files as they arrive and documents the mess while it works it.
30 minutes, no slide deck. We run your data: a real payment file and a real bank statement. Your business is specific; the walkthrough should be too.
Book the walkthrough