Defend every line item.
Recover every dollar of margin.
VVON™ audits every estimate on a claim — carrier, your scope, third-party reviewer — line-by-line against ANSI/IICRC standards. Find the missed scope, build the supplement, export to Xactimate. Every recommendation carries a citation, a photo, and a reading.
Free first audit · Xactimate-compatible · ANSI/IICRC defensibility.
Decode the claim. Audit the scope. Defend the margin.
The three steps your supplement workflow already runs — except the audit step actually has line-by-line standards reasoning under it, and the defend step exports straight into Xactimate.
Upload the policy, the carrier estimate, your scope, and the photos. VVON extracts every clause, every line item, every standard reference into one structured object — the claim as a single record instead of six attachments.
Every line on the carrier estimate cross-referenced against ANSI/IICRC S500 / S520 / S700, OSHA 29 CFR, and the manufacturer specs that apply. Missed line items surface with the citation, the photo evidence, and the dollar impact.
Generate the supplement scope, F9 notes, and the rebuttal packet. Export to Xactimate-compatible structure, CSV, or a printable PDF. Every recommendation carries the citation, the photo, and the reading that supports it.
The eight engines under the hood are documented on /product → Capability inventory for buyers who want depth. The three-step flow above is the same model the rest of the site uses.
Standards-aware. Never standards-bullying.
The Standards Engine maps real conditions — contamination category, class, drying goals, engineering controls — to ANSI/IICRC S500, S520, S700, OSHA, and manufacturer requirements. It explains the reasoning, surfaces confidence, and flags missing documentation. It will not justify what the photos don't support.
- Category & class determination tied to uploaded evidence
- Engineering controls, PPE, containment, filtration logic
- "Additional documentation recommended" — never silent fabrication
- Audit trail per line item: which standard, which photo, which reading
How much supplement margin slips through your shop each year?
Three numbers, one rough estimate. VVON’s typical recovery share is calibrated against the beta cohort — see BetaMetrics on the homepage for the N. Math below is illustrative, not a forecast for any specific claim.
Claims your shop touches per month — your own, plus any you sub on for.
Dollars of legitimate scope the carrier’s initial estimate leaves out — your read.
Of supplements you currently submit unaided, how many actually land.
Every photo, reading, line, and clause — one connected object.
For the first time, a claim isn't a folder of PDFs. It's a graph. Photo #18 supports drywall removal. Moisture reading #4 supports Category 3. Containment Level 3 links to S500 §12.2. The carrier's denial statement links to the disputed line items it actually contradicts. Click any node — see everything it touches.
- Forensic evidence linkage across photos, readings, scope, standards, policy
- Click a denial statement — see exactly which line items it contradicts
- Click a line item — see every piece of evidence backing it
- Exportable as a defensible record for any reviewer
Honest comparison. Every option has its place.
We’re not the right answer for every claim. Public adjusters are for contested negotiations. Consumer apps work for simple playbooks. DIY is fine for small claims. VVON™ is for understanding your coverage: what’s in the policy, what’s missing from the carrier’s estimate, and what the standards say about both.
We don’t name specific competitor brands here on purpose — the comparison is between approaches, not products. Each row reflects how those approaches generally work in the US property-insurance market, not any single company.
A tool, not a representative.
VVON™ is engineered with explicit boundaries. Confidence-based language. Recommendation framing. Evidence limitations. Always.
What VVON™ will never do — and what it always will
Never
- ×Act as a public adjuster
- ×Guarantee claim outcomes
- ×Provide legal advice
- ×Guarantee coverage or payment
- ×Represent itself as an engineer or hygienist
- ×Use aggressive, accusatory carrier language
Always
- ✓Use confidence-based language ("likely", "may depend on")
- ✓Frame outputs as recommendations
- ✓Disclose evidence limitations and missing data
- ✓Recommend contractor / professional verification
- ✓Cite the standard, the photo, and the reading behind every claim
- ✓Distinguish scope vs. price vs. coverage disputes
No, it isn't a chatbot.
Find what your carrier missed.
Upload one estimate. Get a forensic gap analysis based on ANSI/IICRC standards. First review free — no card required.