Assemble acreage, production and claim paperwork against the policy's own procedure, and build the credit file a lender asks for — a licensed agent, a loss adjuster and the lender decide.
Pull planting, acreage, production and settlement records from the farm system, scale tickets and grain records.
02
Pull the statements, tax returns, balance sheet, entity papers and lien searches a credit file is built from.
Reason
03
Match each field to the unit, practice, type and share the policy recognises, and to the crop year reported.
04
Check the yield history against the records that support it, and mark years that rest on nothing acceptable.
05
Read the credit file against the lender's checklist — statements, cash flow, collateral, lien position and eligibility.
Decide
06
Flag the deadline that is close, the record that is missing and the figure two documents disagree about.
07
Route anything that changes what a producer is owed or offered to the licensed agent, the adjuster or the lender.
Out
08
Hand over a packet where every figure carries the document it came from and every gap is named, not filled.
09
Retain the records read, the procedure checked against, the flags raised and every correction a reviewer makes.
→Product statement
The agent assembles, checks against procedure and names what is missing. A licensed agent, a loss adjuster and the lender decide, and nothing is filed by the agent.
2Structure resolvedEntity, share, unit, practice, type and county, against the leases and the prior year
3Checked against procedureThe policy's reporting rules, the loss-adjustment procedure and the lender's credit checklist
4Gaps and dates flaggedMissing records, figures that disagree, and the closing dates that are near
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run without a person in the loop — gathering, structure and the procedure check finish before anyone is asked to read anything. A date about to pass ends that stretch early.
5DecisionSplits on whether the file is complete and supported
Complete and supported
Reaches the licensed agent or lender ready to work from.
Gap, conflict or near date
Goes back for a record before anyone signs.
Licensed agent, adjuster or lender
Reads the assembled packet, the source behind each figure and the list of what is still missing, then signs, files or decides.
Sign and file · Correct · Request records
Signed — handed back▼
6Packet handed overWritten to your systems only where access and policy allow; nothing is filed or signed
7Outcome evaluatedReport accuracy, flag timeliness, documentation completeness and corrections by operation structure
Corrections
What a reviewer changes is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Signing or filing an acreage or production report.
Signing a claim or any loss-adjustment document.
Certifying a yield the records do not support.
Electing or changing unit structure or coverage level.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Assemble acreage, production and claim records by unit and share.
✓Check the file against the policy procedure and the lender's checklist.
✓Flag missing records, figures that disagree and dates that are near.
✓Trace every figure back to the document it came from.
Write actions run only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. Filing is never one of them.
Deciding a credit application or its terms.
Issuing an adverse-action notice or its stated reasons.
Asserting a lien position or perfecting a security interest.
Changing the procedure checks, checklist mapping or thresholds.
Example output
One acreage line, annotated
Everything the agent hands over is attached to the record it was built from.
Assembly output · single acreage lineIllustrative example
Reported as
Acres and share
Source
Held for
Confidence
Filed
Corn, irrigated, unit 0002
148.3 · 100% share
Farm system
Licensed agent — before the date
88%
Not by the agent
As receivedThe acreage line as it stands in the farm system, with the unit and share the producer entered.
Evidence usedIrrigation record, 2 of 3Lease and share agreementPrior-year unit structure
Why it was heldThe irrigation record covers two of the three fields, and the lease puts the share at half.
ActionSign and fileCorrectRequest records
What the score decidesConfidence decides how hard the agent presses for a record. Only a licensed agent files.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every report and credit fileFrom the farm system, the records and the lender
03Assembly & checking
Work from your own procedure
Use the policy's reporting and unit rules, the lender's credit checklist and the records already on the farm.
01Approved path
Stop the file arriving half-built
Records, statements, lien searches and entity papers arrive assembled and traced, so the agent or lender starts from a complete file rather than a folder.
02Human review
Surface the gap while it can be closed
A missing record or a date about to pass reaches a person while the record can still be found, not at claim time when it cannot.
04Build an evidence trail
Retain the records read, the procedure checked against, the flags raised, the confidence and the reviewer's correction — on both paths.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Farm & agronomy systemsOperations Center · FieldView Trimble Ag · Scale and settlement records
Crop insurancePolicy systems · Agency management Actuarial data · Reporting forms
A single-entity, single-county file is the easy case, and it is not the one that comes back. Multi-entity, split-share and multi-county operations carry most of the mis-resolved structure. Nestack reports performance by slice.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Multi-entity operations
7.6%
3.6×
Review
Split-share landlord and tenant
5.4%
2.6×
Review
Multi-county, multi-unit filings
3.9%
1.9×
Watch
Single-entity, single-county files
1.6%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: lift in assembly-error rate vs. single-entity baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Every gap that got past becomes a check
A record the agent should have asked for is not closed when one file is fixed. It becomes a check that runs on every file of that shape afterwards.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
One operation structure at a time: rework, missed flags and the corrections a reviewer made.
02Diagnose
Retrieval, structure resolution, the procedure check and the handoff are separated out.
03Improve
Your compliance lead re-approves the checklist and procedure mapping, and the version is pinned.
04Verify
Past files of the same structure are assembled again, the ones that came back short included.
05Learn
The file is re-assembled on every release, so the record nobody asked for is asked for next time.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. A change to a procedure check is read against the current handbook before it ships, not after.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, records and structure, assembly and checking, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Workflow discovery and automation-boundary definition.
02Policy procedure and lender-checklist mapping.
03Farm-system, records and lending API assessment.
04Entity, share and unit structure resolution.
05Acreage and production record assembly.
06Yield-history checking against acceptable records.
07Credit-file assembly and collateral checks.
08Deadline calendar and gap flagging.
09Evaluation suite, slices and regression cases.
10Traceability and adverse-reason evidence.
11Review workflow and handoff to licensed staff.
12Observability, deployment and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne county, one crop yearProductionProduction integrationAdvancedMulti-entity / multi-county
Introduced at Pilot
Record assembly by unit and share✓✓✓
Procedure and checklist checks✓✓✓
Missing-record and deadline flags✓✓✓
Baseline evaluation✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Client procedure and checklist mapping—✓✓
Yield-history record checking—✓✓
Credit-file assembly and collateral checks—✓✓
Review workflow and handoff—✓✓
Observability and evaluation—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-entity and split-share resolution——✓
Multi-county and enterprise controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, operation structure, county and crop coverage, record quality, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your policy procedure and the lender's credit checklist→Policy procedure and lender-checklist mappingWeek 1
02Entity papers, leases and share agreements→Entity, share and unit structure resolutionWeek 2
03Access to the farm system, records and lending APIs→Farm-system, records and lending API assessment, then data setupWeek 2
04The acreage, production and settlement records you already keep→Record assembly and yield-history checking against acceptable recordsWeek 3
05Files that went wrong — a report sent back, a claim short of documents→Evaluation suite, regression cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06Your date calendar, and who has to be told and by when→Deadline calendar and gap flaggingWeek 4
07Named licensed agents, adjusters and lending staff→Review workflow and handoff, then pilot files and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. Week 5 carries both the structure slices and the first files a licensed agent works from.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Procedure, checklist and automation boundary agreed with your compliance leadW2Entity, share and unit structure resolved on the first countyW3Record assembly, yield-history checking and credit-file buildW4Deadline calendar, evaluation suite and structure slicesW5Integration, supervised files and targeted correctionsW6Licensed staff work from assembled files, then Agent Care starts
Reading the bandStructure slices are tested in week 4, before any file reaches a licensed agent in week 5. Nothing is handed over until they are.
At the end of W6Files have been assembled alongside your existing process and read by the people who sign them, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Agriculture AI agent
Build an assembly agent around your reporting and credit files.
Show us one acreage report, one claim file and one credit file — the ones that came back. We'll rebuild each from your own records and show you what the agent would have flagged, and on what date.
