49 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
49 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
|
## VII. Conclusion: A New Eye for Deception
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The Recursive Claim is more than a technical framework.
|
|||
|
|
It is a lens.
|
|||
|
|
A new eye for deception—not to punish, but to perceive.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### A. Summary of Framework
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We have introduced a linguistically grounded forensic methodology for detecting deception in insurance claims. This model:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- Builds upon **recursive coherence theory** and **pattern resonance**
|
|||
|
|
- Integrates NLP and AI-assisted review with human ethical oversight
|
|||
|
|
- Offers a three-zone risk typology to distinguish **error**, **adaptation**, and **fraud**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Where current models fixate on anomalies, our approach listens for the **fractal structure of intention**.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### B. Toward Public-Private Deployment
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We call for targeted trials with:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- Insurance fraud investigators and SIU teams
|
|||
|
|
- Claims adjuster training programs
|
|||
|
|
- Legal review boards and ethics panels
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The model is not static.
|
|||
|
|
It evolves with field data.
|
|||
|
|
Its success depends on recursive validation with **real human narratives**.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### C. A Note on Alignment
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This paper is part of *The Empathic Technologist* series—a movement committed to embedding dignity, coherence, and clarity into all layers of human–machine collaboration.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We believe that forensic language tools must do more than detect.
|
|||
|
|
They must **understand**.
|
|||
|
|
They must **witness**.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### D. Closing Invocation
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> *“Every false claim is a fracture in the field.
|
|||
|
|
> To repair it, we must first listen to the silence between words.”*
|