A delegatee scales its partner network without scaling its back office
A delegatee aggregating savings operations on behalf of several obligated parties, growing its installer network faster than it could hire reviewers.
Who they are.
A delegatee that aggregates savings operations on behalf of several obligated parties. Its business is scale: the more installer partners it signs, the more volume it can place — and each obligated client it serves has its own slightly different document rules.
Anonymised at the client’s request. Client names are never disclosed without written permission.
What had to be solved.
Growth was capped by review capacity. Every new partner meant either another reviewer or a longer queue, and the differences between each obligated client’s requirements lived in spreadsheets that only a few people understood.
What success looked like.
- Add partners without adding reviewers
- Hold each obligated client’s rules separately, and change them without retraining anyone
- Let partners resolve their own rejects instead of routing everything through the back office
What Ceertia does here.
One versioned use case per obligated client, written in plain language in the builder. Partners submit into their own workspace and see their rejects there. When a client changes a requirement, the use case is edited once and applies to the next file — no reviewer briefing, no spreadsheet update.
Every file must contain exactly one signed commitment form: flag files with zero, and files with more than one.
How it runs, step by step.
The file arrives with its documents, in any format, from whoever sends it.
Every page is identified and mapped against the expected document list. Missing documents, duplicates and out-of-scope pages are flagged on receipt.
Each rule asks the file a question and answers it directly on the documents, with page, zone and source text attached to the verdict.
The team approves, requests a fix, or rejects. No file is approved or rejected automatically.
What changed.
Partner count grew threefold while the review team stayed the same size. A rule change went from a training exercise to a single edit, and reviewers stopped being the bottleneck on commercial growth.
- Every new partner meant another reviewer, or a longer queue.
- Each obligated client had slightly different document rules, tracked in spreadsheets.
- A rule change had to be explained to every reviewer, one by one.
- Partners submit into their own workspace and fix their own rejects.
- Each obligated client’s rules live in their own versioned use case.
- A rule change is edited once, in plain language, and applies to the next file.
Anonymised case. Client names are never disclosed without written permission. Figures describe the file volumes and checks in this scenario.
Other files, same engine.
A European energy supplier meeting a national savings obligation through works files submitted by hundreds of installer partners.
Read the case → Energy efficiencyDefending two years of files in a regulator auditAn obligated party asked by its supervisory body to justify decisions taken on files submitted up to two years earlier, under rules that had changed twice since.
Read the case →See it run on your own files.
Bring one real file to a 30-minute demo. Watch the verification run, evidence on screen.