New Claims Platform
Product UAT · Workflow Validation · User Needs
Testing a new claims platform against real-world specialist workflows.
A new claims-management platform was being introduced into a high-volume operational environment. I participated in structured UAT, using real-world specialist workflows and scenarios to evaluate whether the product supported the information, decisions and actions required to handle claims effectively.
I tested end-to-end workflows across orientation, eligibility, evidence, responsibility, payment and claim closure, including incomplete information, decision dependencies, workflow states, changing previous decisions, and exiting and resuming cases.
The problem
A workflow can be technically functional and still fail the people who depend on it.
The key question was therefore not simply:
Does the feature work?
It was:
Does the workflow support the way specialists actually need to work?
What I tested
I evaluated the platform against questions such as:
Is the right information available when the user needs it?
Do workflow steps become available at the correct point?
Do business rules and system recommendations behave as expected?
What happens when a previous decision needs to be changed?
Can a specialist safely move backwards without losing progress?
Do incomplete questions prevent inappropriate progression?
Can a user exit and resume a claim without losing necessary context?
Does the final outcome reflect the decisions made throughout the workflow?
What I identified
Testing surfaced issues including:
Missing task notifications that could affect workflow visibility
Incomplete activity history affecting the user's ability to understand what had happened in a case
Information gaps affecting specialist decision-making
Differences between the new and existing workflow
Workflow/state-management issues, including behaviour when changing previous decisions
Gaps in workflow logic around incomplete information and progression
I documented issues, feature requests and recommendations through the UAT process, providing the reasoning behind each observation and connecting it to workflow efficiency, user experience, decision quality and operational risk.
From test result to product question
The testing required me to look beyond individual screens and evaluate the end-to-end experience.
For example, when a workflow allowed a specialist to move backwards, I considered not only whether the navigation technically worked, but whether changing an earlier decision could affect information or progress already captured.
When information was missing, I considered whether the absence merely created inconvenience or could actually affect the specialist's ability to make a correct decision.
This changed the focus from feature testing to workflow and user-needs validation.
What this demonstrates
Product UAT
Testing functionality against real-world user scenarios rather than isolated features.
Requirements clarification
Identifying where the product did not provide the information or behaviour required by the workflow.
Workflow analysis
Understanding dependencies, states, progression and exception paths across an end-to-end process.
User needs
Evaluating the product from the perspective of the specialist who has to use it to make decisions.
Business-rule validation
Checking whether system behaviour aligned with the decisions and rules underlying the claims process.
Operational risk awareness
Identifying product behaviour that could create friction, lost context or decision-making risk.
Product takeaway
This experience reinforced a principle I now bring to product work:
A feature is not successful simply because it works. It is successful when it helps the user complete the right outcome within the real workflow.
