# ClaimAnchor™ — Deal Structure & Go-To-Market
## Pricing, Channel Strategy, and Target Sequencing
### Prepared June 2026 · ICPO X Inc. · Confidential

---

## Positioning Statement

ClaimAnchor is evidence provenance infrastructure for insurance.

**The category creation argument:**
Industry leaders have identified the problem. Guidewire named the requirement in January 2026. Verisk quantified the gap in March 2026. NAIC, Deloitte, and RiskBlock Alliance have independently validated provenance, auditability, and multi-party trusted records as the highest-value blockchain applications in insurance. ClaimAnchor is the product that closes the gap none of them are closing.

**Why it's timely:** AI has reduced the cost of document manipulation to near zero. Detection tools tell you whether something looks suspicious. Provenance tells you what was submitted and when. Those are different problems, and only one of them has an infrastructure answer.

---

## Current Scorecard

From multi-party external review:

| Category | Score | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Problem identification | 9/10 | Strong |
| Strategic positioning | 8.5/10 | Strong |
| Channel strategy | 8/10 | Strong |
| Enterprise narrative | 8.5/10 | Strong |
| Market timing | 9/10 | Strong |
| Pricing confidence | 5.5/10 | In progress |
| Proof of economic pain | 4/10 → improving | 6 findings documented; 20-case white paper in progress |

The next credibility leap is documented case evidence — not pitch refinement.

---

## Target Market Sequencing

| Priority | Segment | Annual Budget Range | Decision Maker | Why They Buy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **1 — MGAs** | Managing General Agents | $10K–$50K | Compliance officer / COO | Producer oversight, fraud controls, carrier reporting, audit readiness |
| **2 — Distribution Platforms** | Integrity and equivalents | Platform deal | C-suite | Network-wide standardization; one deal = thousands of producers |
| **3 — Specialty Carriers** | E&S, gap, medical stop-loss | $50K–$200K | CRO / General Counsel | Litigation defense, regulatory readiness, SIU support |
| **4 — Enterprise Carriers** | Top 50 P&C | $200K–$1M+ | Innovation / CTO | Long cycle; infrastructure-level commitment |
| **5 — Independent Agencies** | Individual producers | $1,200–$6,000/yr | Principal | Protection and audit readiness; most won't act until after a dispute |

**MGA-first is confirmed.** Agencies provide proof points and density. MGA and carrier deals build the business. The provenance argument lands naturally with an MGA executive who already worries about producer oversight, fraud exposure, and carrier relationships. It does not land the same way with a retail producer focused on commissions and lead flow.

---

## Pricing

### Principle: Risk controls, not blockchain transactions.

Buyers purchase a control. The goal at the agency tier is deployment density and case studies — not margin. Margin begins at the MGA tier.

### Agency Tiers

| Tier | Monthly | Annual Volume | For |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Agency** | $249/month | ~3,000 records | Independent producers. One avoided dispute recovers 3+ years. |

### MGA Tiers

| Tier | Annual | Volume | For |
|---|---|---|---|
| **MGA** | $24,900/year | 15,000 records | Up to 200 producers. Less than one carrier audit response. |
| **MGA Enterprise** | $49,900/year | 50,000 records | 500+ producers. Carrier-presentable controls. Includes API + SIU integration. |
| **Enterprise / Carrier** | $50,000+/year | Unlimited | Carriers, large platforms; white labeling + carrier integrations + BAA |

### Pilot Pricing

| Target | Price | Structure |
|---|---|---|
| Agency pilot (e.g., Eric Hemati) | $1,500 | 30 days, 200 records, full certificates, dashboard |
| MGA pilot | $2,500 | 30 days, 500 records, certificates + compliance export |

All pilots are 100% credited toward the first-year contract at conversion.

*Eric Hemati's pilot is committed at $1,500. Future agency pilot pricing may remain at $1,500 or adjust. MGA pilots should open at $2,500.*

---

## The Eric Hemati Deal

### Eric as Customer

| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Pilot | $1,500 / 30 days / 200 certificates |
| Pilot credit | $1,500 credited toward first annual Agency subscription |
| Post-pilot recommendation | Agency ($249/month) — $1,500 credit covers first 6 months |
| First-year effective cost | $1,500 pilot (credited) + $1,488 remaining = $1,500 total all-in for ~12 months |

### Eric as Channel Partner

The subscription is not the point. The Integrity relationship is the point.

**Channel commission structure:**

| Period | Rate | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 25% of ARR | Compensates for deploying the relationship; aggressive but standard for enterprise SaaS referral |
| Year 2 | 5% of ARR | Keeps the relationship warm; avoids perpetual revenue leakage |
| Year 3+ | 0% | Predictable CAC; necessary when enterprise deals emerge |

**What referrals are worth to Eric:**

| Referral | Year 1 Commission (25%) | Year 2 Commission (5%) |
|---|---|---|
| 5 agencies at $249/month | $3,735 | $747 |
| 1 MGA at $24,900/year | $6,225 | $1,245 |
| 1 MGA Enterprise at $49,900/year | $12,475 | $2,495 |
| 3 MGAs (mix) | $18,700+ | $3,740+ |

One MGA Enterprise introduction alone outperforms the full agency tier by 3x. That is where to aim the conversation once the pilot completes.

### Channel Partner Terms
- Cash commission only — no equity at this stage
- Paid monthly on active subscriptions
- 90-day attribution window on referrals
- No exclusivity on either side
- Formalized in a simple 1–2 page Channel Partner Agreement
- All equity and platform revenue share discussions require counsel review after entity formation

---

## The Integrity Platform Play

Integrity's network scale creates the possibility of network-wide deployment and standardized provenance controls across thousands of producers. A single platform relationship is materially more valuable than hundreds of individual agency sales.

The structure of that relationship — revenue share, licensing, white label — requires counsel review before any commitments are made.

**This conversation happens only after:**
1. Eric's pilot completes with documented results
2. Eric has real data — verified claim records, working audit dashboard, certificate examples from his own submissions
3. ICPO X entity is formed and counsel has cleared the commercial structure

Eric doesn't walk into Integrity with a product pitch. He walks in with a working implementation and 30 days of his own data.

---

## Who Buys This — The Organizational Fit Map

ClaimAnchor does not belong to one function. It is pulled by four buyers for different reasons, with one economic owner and three accelerators.

### The Buying Chain

| Step | Who | Their Role | What They Need to Hear |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | **SIU** | Demand generator + champion | "We no longer reconstruct truth — we verify it instantly." |
| 2 | **Claims Operations** | **Economic buyer** — owns the budget | "We eliminate document ambiguity from the claims lifecycle." |
| 3 | **Compliance / Legal** | Gatekeeper — must approve | "We convert your audit trail from internal logs into externally verifiable evidence." |
| 4 | **CIO / IT** | Implementation gate — must not block | "A supplemental trust layer that sits outside the system of record. Minimal integration surface." |
| 5 | **CFO / COO** | Signs | Combined ROI narrative from all four functions |

### Heat Map

| Function | Pain | Budget | Decision Power | ClaimAnchor Role |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SIU | 🔴 Very high | 🟡 Medium | 🟡 Advisory | Fastest adopter, strongest testimonial source |
| **Claims Operations** | 🔴 Very high | 🟢 **High** | 🟡 Shared | **Primary economic buyer** |
| Compliance / Legal | 🟠 Medium–High | 🟡 Medium | 🔴 Gatekeeper | Blocker → enabler when framed correctly |
| CIO / IT | 🟠 Medium | 🔴 High | 🔴 Implementation gate | Approves on architecture, not ROI |

### The Correct Positioning Phrase

**"Claims evidence infrastructure layer that reduces operational friction, investigation cost, and legal exposure by making document provenance verifiable at submission time."**

- Claims Ops buys it
- Compliance approves it
- CIO tolerates it
- SIU champions it

### CIO Acceptance Condition
CIOs approve when they see: minimal integration surface (API or email drop-in), no disruption to core claims system, clear separation from system-of-record responsibilities. Do not lead with blockchain in the CIO conversation.

---

## Where the Budget Actually Lives

"Provenance risk" is not a discrete budget line item at any insurance organization. The spend is fragmented across four existing functions — and that is the opportunity.

**ClaimAnchor is a budget compression layer, not a new budget category.**

| Existing Budget | What It Currently Funds | How ClaimAnchor Extends It |
|---|---|---|
| Fraud / SIU operations | Investigation, forensics, document reconstruction | Replaces after-the-fact reconstruction with before-the-fact provenance |
| Claims operations | Adjusters, dispute handling, rework cycles | Reduces version confusion, reopened claims, carrier back-and-forth |
| Legal / E&O defense | Coverage disputes, fraud allegations, regulatory response | Stronger evidentiary posture before disputes escalate to litigation |
| Compliance / audit readiness | DOI audits, record retention, regulatory reporting | Converts internal logs into externally verifiable evidence |

**Pricing logic:** If ClaimAnchor prevents even 1–2 provenance disputes per year, the ROI is positive at MGA pricing. The correct pricing anchor is avoidable cost pools — SIU investigation ($5K–$50K per case), litigation defense ($10K–$250K+ per matter), audit reconstruction (multi-day labor) — not certificate volume.

---

## The "Why Not Existing Systems" Response

Every sophisticated buyer will ask: *"Doesn't Guidewire already do this? Can't our document management system timestamp uploads?"*

| Capability | Claims System | Document Management | Fraud Platform | **ClaimAnchor** |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Store records | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
| Track workflow | ✓ | Limited | — | — |
| Detect suspicious claims | Limited | — | ✓ | — |
| **Independent provenance** | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | **✓** |
| **Third-party verifiable** | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | **✓** |
| **Immutable evidence record** | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | **✓** |
| **Neutral-party timestamp** | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | **✓** |

Existing systems timestamp into databases they control. Those timestamps can be challenged because they belong to an interested party. ClaimAnchor's timestamp is Bitcoin — a public record owned by no one.

ClaimAnchor does not replace any of these systems. It installs underneath them.

---

## The Enterprise Framing

A carrier may not purchase "claim anchoring." But they may purchase:

**Enterprise Evidence Integrity Infrastructure** — a permanent, independent provenance layer across every record category that touches regulatory and litigation risk.

Future modules on the same infrastructure:
- Policy issuance and change provenance
- Underwriting record provenance
- Beneficiary designation provenance
- Producer disclosure records
- AI-generated recommendation audit trails
- Compliance disclosure records
- Cancellation notices

That is not a claims product. That is infrastructure. Enterprise valuation begins there.

---

## Pre-Signature Checklist

Before any pilot customer signs anything:

- [ ] ICPO X Wyoming LLC formed (this week — ~$100)
- [ ] Pilot agreement drafted — 1 page: scope, price, IP ownership, no equity
- [ ] Channel partner agreement drafted — commission terms (25%/5%/0%), payment schedule, no exclusivity, no equity
- [ ] Certificate delivery path confirmed as production-ready (email / dashboard / API)
- [ ] Testnet disclosure in all pilot materials — BTC anchoring is currently testnet; mainnet deployment prior to commercial subscription launch

---

## Open Items

**The primary remaining gap: proof of willingness to pay.**
Concern ≠ budget. The documented case evidence shows the problem is real and costly. The next step is determining which existing budget line ClaimAnchor extends — compliance, fraud, SIU, legal, or governance. That determines the buyer, the sales motion, and the objections to prepare for.

**Pricing:**
- [x] Agency tier set at $249/month — positions as risk control, not SaaS fee. One avoided dispute = 3+ years covered.
- [x] MGA entry at $24,900/year — less than one carrier audit response.
- [ ] Should MGA pilots open at $2,500 or higher ($5,000) to signal seriousness?
- [ ] Enterprise anchor: is $50K/year the right floor to open carrier conversations?

**Evidence case (active research):**
- [ ] Reach 20 documented cases — court filings, SIU reports, DOI enforcement actions, E&O disputes — where provenance failure was a material issue. Six findings documented. See `claim-anchor-evidence-case-tracker.md` for the research framework.

**Infrastructure:**
- [ ] Which certificate delivery mechanism is production-ready now?
- [ ] Timeline to mainnet BTC anchoring?
- [ ] Can the audit dashboard be demoed in a pilot without full production deploy?

---

*ClaimAnchor™ is a product of ICPO X Inc. · Deal structure · June 2026 · Confidential*
*Nothing herein constitutes legal, financial, insurance, or compliance advice.*
*All equity and revenue share discussions subject to counsel review before execution.*