ParaEval
Demo Cases
Three synthetic adjudication scenarios built to show how the same review surface behaves under different evidence conditions: a strong trigger-met flagship case, a second met case with cleaner support, and a not-met case that exposes basis-risk and index mismatch more clearly.
Cases where the current evidence set supports payout attachment.
Cases near threshold where disagreement would dominate review time.
Cases that clarify the difference between severe event and actual trigger failure.
Scenario Comparison
Start with the Hong Kong flagship if you want the fullest tour of payout logic and basis-risk framing. Use Manila and Jakarta as cleaner contrast cases.
Hong Kong Cold-Chain Warehouse — Typhoon Saola
Kwai Chung, Hong Kong
Synthetic flagship claim packet for a refrigerated warehouse near the Kwai Chung container terminals. Official wind observations cross the first payout tier while flood-related evidence remains mixed, producing a defensible trigger decision with explicit basis-risk notes.
Cold-chain warehouse and loading apron serving containerized food shipments
It has the richest mix of support and contradiction: enough evidence to recommend payout, but enough conflict to make basis-risk explanation necessary.
If you want to understand what ParaEval is for, this is the case that demonstrates the full adjudication story best.
Manila Coastal Logistics Facility — Typhoon Karding
Manila, Philippines
Typhoon Karding parametric policy for a port logistics facility in the Bay of Manila. All three evidence sources confirm rainfall well above the 188mm trigger threshold.
Jakarta Residential Asset — January 2020 Floods
Jakarta, Indonesia
Parametric flood policy for a residential compound in South Jakarta. The index gauge did not breach the trigger threshold despite widespread flooding in adjacent districts.