PASSENGER.CARE — AIRLINE EVALUATION DISCUSSION BRIEF Passenger.care helps airline teams connect passenger claims, flight evidence, deterministic evaluation and human-reviewed responses. Start with one workflow and use the pilot to test the fit with your operation. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK — scope and commercial terms are agreed with your airline. WHO TO INVOLVE Claims & customer care Will this make the work easier to review? Choose the workflow, define ordinary cases and exceptions, and nominate the people who will review results. Review evidence: Hands-on time per case, missing evidence, reviewer changes and response quality. Legal & compliance Can we explain and govern each outcome? Agree the applicable rules, airline interpretation, approved communication templates and review responsibilities. Review evidence: The facts and rule version behind a proposal, the human approval record and the treatment of exceptions. IT & security How will it fit our systems and data boundaries? Map CRM and flight operations data, access roles, the on-premises environment and any approved inbound feeds. Review evidence: Data-flow review, integration mappings, permission checks and the approach to missing or conflicting inputs. Sponsor & procurement What would justify the next investment? Confirm the budget owner and procurement path. Agree the pilot scope and acceptance criteria with the operational, legal and technical reviewers. Review evidence: A shared findings report, remaining dependencies and a documented proceed, refine or stop decision. STARTING INPUTS - One claims workflow and the difficulty you want to address. - An outline of your CRM, flight data and current approval path. - The people who own operational, legal, technical and budget decisions. - An agreed sample of synthetic or authorised historical cases, once the data arrangements are in place. Do not send passenger records through the public website. CONTROLS TO DEMONSTRATE Human approval AI can assist with the draft. Your authorised team approves the decision and the communication through their defined paths. Check: Demonstrate a draft, an approval and a returned proposal with the agreed reviewer roles. Decision history Keep the source facts, rule version and approved decision connected to the claim. Changes to relevant facts can require reassessment. Check: Trace one ordinary claim and one exception, then review what happens when their source decision changes. Data boundaries Run on-premises with local AI. Passenger data stays within your organisation; approved operational evidence can enter from external sources. Check: Review the deployment data flow and the configured access and external connections with your IT team. Controlled communication Preparing or approving a response is separate from sending it. The airline connector and its delivery receipt establish the transport outcome. Check: Agree the connector and templates, and test a successful receipt as well as a delivery failure. MEASURES TO AGREE BEFORE THE PILOT - Hands-on handling time: Compare the same workflow and agreed case categories. Separate active work from waiting for evidence. - Reviewer changes: Record what a reviewer changes and why. Distinguish missing facts, rule interpretation and wording edits. - Response quality: Agree a rubric for factual consistency, tone and completeness for each language in scope before reviewing outputs. - Traceability & exceptions: Check whether a reviewer can find the source facts, rule version and approval, including when a case needs a separate path. PROPOSED OUTPUTS - A baseline and comparison for the agreed workflow. - Findings on case handling, review quality and exceptions. - An integration and deployment checklist with unresolved dependencies. - A joint recommendation: proceed, refine the scope or stop. NEXT STEP Discuss your claims workflow: sales@passenger.care https://passenger.care/evaluation-guide/ Passenger.care is in development and testing for airline adoption. No production airline deployment or measured customer savings are claimed.