What Does Your Insurer Ask About AI Drawing Review?
Helonic is an AI construction drawing analysis platform for risk managers and insurance brokers reviewing a contractor's use of AI drawing review. What your insurer asks about AI drawing review is an errors and omissions question, not a software question. They want to know whether a person is still responsible, whether the process is written, and whether you keep records. This page is not insurance advice, so confirm everything with your broker. Who is liable after a missed finding is a different question, covered on who is liable when AI misses a drawing error.
Direct answer. An insurer asking about Helonic or any AI drawing review tool wants four things: confirmation that the tool does not replace a licensed professional's review, the name of the person who confirms each finding, a written process, and records of what was found and decided. Helonic's AI policy describes its findings as decision support.
What questions come back from the broker?
| Question | A clean answer |
|---|---|
| Does the tool replace a licensed professional's review? | No. A person confirms or rejects each finding, and nothing is issued on the tool's say-so alone. |
| Who reviews each finding? | A named reviewer, recorded on the score sheet. |
| Is the process written down? | A one-page procedure, dated, kept with the vendor file. |
| Are records kept? | Findings, decisions, and the log of what became an RFI. |
| What does the vendor contract say about responsibility? | That findings are decision support. Counsel reviews the rest. |
The phrasing varies by carrier. The shape does not. The insurer is asking whether the tool adds a second look or removes a first one.
What should be written down before they ask?
One page is enough. It says the tool produces findings, a named reviewer confirms or rejects each one, confirmed findings go to the RFI or issue log, and nothing is issued because the tool said so. Keep the score sheet from the pilot as the first record. Its format is on what done looks like on the first project.
Helonic's AI policy states that qualified personnel review outputs, validate findings, and decide the final action. That matches the written process an insurer expects, and it is a sentence your counsel can cite in the vendor file.
What should you not tell the insurer?
- That the tool catches everything. No review does.
- That the tool replaces the QA step. It adds a pass before it.
- Anything you have not actually put into practice on a real job.
Contract language that supports your answers is on what legal wants in an AI drawing review contract. Reliability of the findings is on how accurate is AI drawing review. Who signs the order is on who signs the AI drawing review order. The buying criteria are on what to look for in an AI construction drawing review platform, and the product is described on AI document review.
What records should you keep for the underwriter?
Keep five things together in the vendor file: the one-page procedure, the pilot score sheet, the reviewer log showing who confirmed or rejected each finding, the RFI or issue log entries that came from findings, and the vendor's AI policy and security documents. When the broker asks, you send a folder, not a memory.
Records show that a person stayed responsible. That is the point of every insurer question. What the tool actually produces is described in AI for construction drawings.
What should the one-page procedure say?
Five lines cover what a broker usually wants to see.
- The tool reviews the issued PDF set and produces findings with sheet locations.
- A named reviewer confirms or rejects every finding before it goes anywhere.
- Confirmed findings go to the RFI or issue log, with the reviewer recorded.
- Nothing is issued or priced on the tool's output alone.
- The score sheet and reviewer log are kept with the project record.
Date the page and put it in the vendor file. Update it when the process changes, and the broker always has the current version.
Practitioner insight
“My broker did not ask how good the AI was. She asked who looks at what it finds, and whether I could show her. A one-page procedure and a score sheet answered it.”
Conversations with risk managers at general contractors whose brokers asked about AI tools in preconstruction.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does an insurer ask about AI drawing review?
Does using AI drawing review change my E&O coverage?
Is the insurer's question the same as who is liable for a missed finding?
What should be written down before an insurer asks?
What does Helonic say about human review?
Milind Sagaram
Co-founder & CEO, HelonicMilind is the co-founder and CEO of Helonic, where he leads product and go-to-market for AI-powered construction drawing analysis. He works closely with general contractors, project managers, estimators, and owners to understand how drawing quality drives project outcomes - and where AI can reduce RFIs, change orders, and rework. Milind has interviewed hundreds of construction professionals across project delivery roles, from preconstruction estimators at ENR top-400 contractors to facilities directors at institutional owners, and uses those conversations to shape both product direction and the way Helonic talks about the work.
- Construction project delivery and preconstruction
- RFI and change order economics
- Owner and GC workflows for drawing QA/QC
- Estimating risk and bid-stage scope assessment
Last reviewed by Milind Sagaram · October 2026