Thesis

Today’s property claims environment is defined by higher claim volumes, cost volatility, and longer review cycles that demand first pass accuracy over speed, supported by analysis of more than 40,000 Xactimate estimates representing $1.4B in scope across a diverse set of restoration contractors. We break down four restoration contractors that show the Actionable Profile’s Live Estimating Guidance reduces omissions, standardizes methodology and documentation, and drives more complete, validated estimates with improving estimator behavior over time. 

Introduction

In 2025, accuracy at first pass, not speed, became a critical lever in Xactimate. We examine how the Actionable Profile’s Live Estimating Guidance improves the estimates quality by reducing omissions, strengthening documentation, and increasing validation confidence. 

This analysis encompasses a broad portfolio of over 40,000 estimates that represent a total of $1.4B in scope. We focus on four restoration contractors, from a small independent to a large national franchise to encompass the entire industry and performance patterns across different business models and scales. The variables we focus on primarily are authoring-time behaviors that directly influence outcomes which include validation engagement, alert resolution, and estimator performance trends. 

Post-estimate Quality Assurance (QA) and supplements can uncover missed items; it causes more work to files that were already touched. Improving at first pass accuracy reduces cycle times across both QA and external review channels. 

The Industry Challenge

Restoration businesses and their teams operate under pressure from high claim volumes, cost volatility, and a multi-layered review process that amplifies estimate variance and omission risks at the time of authoring. The result is preventable rework, supplements, and extended approval timelines that strain teams in the field and at the desk, especially during CAT events and growth periods.  

Here is where first pass accuracy generally breaks down:

• Scope omissions, such as cleaning and temporary services
• Methodology and documentation gaps, including F9 notes which slow down QA      but speeds up approvals
• Engagement fatigue, driven by low-signal or excessive rules that decrease resolution rates

Instead of relying on corrections later in the process, improvement relies on strengthening consistency and defensibility during the estimate’s creation. Embedding these standards, methodologies, and documentation expectations directly into the estimate helps shift the effort at the beginning of the process, reduces revision cycles, and aligns estimates with carrier expectations. This sets the stage for measurable improvements in accuracy and approvals. 

Baseline Accuracy Starts Before the Alert

Our analysis shows that accuracy is influenced not only by real-time alerts, but also by the baseline profile configuration. While the alerts identify missed or inconsistent line items, new data shows that estimates written using the base Actionable Profile settings are 3.5% more accurate in gross estimate value than those written using standard contractor or carrier profiles, with all other factors held constant. This improvement reflects more consistent, standards-aligned estimating behavior, not added scope or pricing, and establishes a stronger starting point that the alerts then build on to incrementally improve accuracy during authoring.

Accuracy at Authoring Time and Claims Outcomes

Accuracy at authoring time has measurable effects across the claim’s lifecycle. Beyond improving gross valuation and scope completeness, higher first pass accuracy materially reduces rework and accelerates approvals across both internal QA systems and external client review channels.

Year-over-year results from a highly governed, high-volume claims program show: 

• Corrections per assignment declined by ~15% (1.76 → ~1.51)
• Average correction magnitude fell by ~72% (3.91% → 1.1%)
• QA approvals accelerated by 11.4 days
• Client approvals accelerated by 8.1 days, even as assignment volume grew ~16% YoY.

These findings show that improvements in estimate accuracy at the start reduce friction and accelerate claim resolution.

Solutions: Authoring Time Guidance Framework

To address these industry challenges, the Actionable Profile’s Live Estimating Guidance embeds industry best practices directly into Xactimate, providing real-time guardrails that standardize estimating without prescribing pricing. This framework focuses on scope completeness and defensibility. There are over 5,700 real-time alerts that are supported by pre-built macros and default sketch settings that standardize estimator behavior while allowing room for the estimator’s judgment. This allows immediate feedback within the workflow, codified best practices, and reduced reliance on post-hoc review cycles.

Key performance indicators show meaningful and positive traction. Approximately 33% of the total estimate dollars were validated year to date (YTD) using the Actionable Profile platform’s “Complete” function, with competitive positioning relative to market norms. This rose substantially in recent months, which indicates a momentum shift as each team becomes more comfortable with their workflow. A key and critical variable to this process is governance. Rule sets require signal-to-noise optimization, and leadership should balance estimator coaching with compliance checks to avoid a “check-the-box” mentality that can cause failures in improving the scopes quality. 

Reductions in corrections and approval times year over year reinforces the value of the Actionable Profile’s Live Estimating Guidance. By improving estimate accuracy and documentation at the beginning, the Actionable Profile       reduces QA friction and accelerates approvals. 

Four Businesses. Four Success Stories.

We examined four restoration contractors that use the Actionable Profile. This analysis shows how the Actionable Profile’s Live Estimating Guidance influences the outcome across different business models. We observed data from a small independent restoration contractor, a large independent restoration contractor, a mid-to-large franchise, and a large national franchise.

Each example uses the same milestone markers: scale and mix, benchmark signals, alert resolution behavior, and the relationship between validation and alert-driven impact.

What the metrics mean:

• How estimators handled alerts year to date:

1. Unresolved: An alert is triggered, but the estimator does not interact with it 
2. Resolved: An alert is triggered and the estimator acts
3. Bypassed: An alert is triggered and the estimator overrides/dismisses it

Client A: Small Independent Restoration Contractor

Client A is a small independent contractor that shows high validation efficiency on its engaged files, with a clear opportunity in lifting alert resolution across the full estimate dataset.

• 19 YTD estimates; Validated $533.4K; Alert impact $51.0K (14.7%)
• Stable validated dollars and impact %
• 29.9% resolved
• 58.96% unresolved
• 11.11% bypassed
• $458,050 validated (100%); alert impact 14.5%, evidence of strong first pass completeness when alerts are addressed

When the alerts are engaged, Client A achieves a strong first pass for completeness and high validated impact, but low overall resolution rates signal the clear upside in expanding their alert engagements across all their estimates.

Client B: Large Independent Restoration Contractor

Client B is a large independent restoration contractor that scales its volume with competitive validation, but unresolved alerts significantly limit the additional impact. 

• 507 YTD estimates; Validated $6.6M; Alert impact $4.0M (10.06%)
• Top 25% validated dollars; Top 50% impact %
• 21.21% resolved
• 74.73% unresolved
• 4.45% bypassed
• 60.3% by dollars ($3.89M/$6.45M) and 57.2% by count (282/493); 10.2% alert impact on validated work

This large independent restoration contractor pairs solid validation performance with scale but shows a high number of unresolved alerts that prevent additional gains, making improved alert resolution the most impactful variable.

Client C: Mid to Large Franchise

Client C is a mid-to-large franchise that shows strong impact where alerts are engaged but needs to convert a large pipeline into validation.

• 685 YTD estimates; Validated $52.6M; Alert impact $7.6M (14.27%)
• Validated dollars declining (Top 25%); impact % improving (Top 25%)
• 40.47% resolved
• 54.54% unresolved
• 4.98% bypassed
• $50.52M estimated across 619 files vs. $6.42M validated (12.7% dollars / 9.7% count); 15% alert impact on validated indicates high quality when engaged.

The next step is to convert more in-progress estimates into validated files with similar quality. This mid-to-large franchise delivers high quality, high impact results when alerts are engaged, but there is a significant conversion gap from in-progress to validated files which remains the primary lever to unlock additional gains.

Client D: Large National Franchise

Client D is a large national franchise that sustains strong resolution and steady impact, with room to re-accelerate their validated conversion.

• 3,284 YTD estimates; Validated $195.8M; Alert impact $16.8M (7.78%)
• Validated dollars declining (Top 25%); impact % stable (Top 50%)
• 52.87% resolved
• 34.97% unresolved
• 12.15% bypassed
• 33.2% by dollars ($164.0M/$494.0M); 7.8% by count (222/2,844); 8.4% alert impact on validated

We observed that selectively retiring low-signal rules frees up capacity, speeds up conversion, and preserves the team’s strong engagement where it matters most, the quality. Client D has a strong alert resolutions rate and steady impact, by reducing low-signal rules it’s likely they will accelerate their validation conversion without sacrificing their quality. 

2025 YTD Portfolio Overview

The Actionable Profile’s Live Estimating Guidance shows stable, repeatable impact with the largest gains unlocked by better resolution. Full Actionable Profile portfolio overview:

• Over 40,000 estimates, $1.284B estimated, $472M validated, and $38.2M alert-driven impact
• Validated dollars stable (Top 25%); impact % stable (Top 50%)
• 42.7% resolved
• 46.62% unresolved
• 10.68% bypassed
• Validation momentum pockets (Client B by dollars, Client D by resolution); portfolio impact stability at roughly 8–9% when rules are engaged; conversion gaps (Client C) show a strong quality on engaged files (~15%)

Conclusion

Across four restoration contractors and more than 40,000 estimates, we see that using the Actionable Profile’s Live Estimating Guidance in Xactimate helps teams write better estimates the first time.

These gains are not theoretical; they are data driven. In one of the industry’s most stringent claims environments, improved first pass accuracy resulted in fewer corrections, smaller adjustments, and shrank approval timelines by weeks, even when claims volumes increased. 

Beyond valuation accuracy, this layered approach produces meaningful effects. Estimates authored with stronger baselines and higher alert engagement experience fewer objections, stronger technical defensibility, and higher approval confidence. These files are easier to explain, easier to support, and easier to settle.

This content was produced by BNP Engage as part of a paid partnership.