CapSeal - Visa program scenario

This is an illustrative scenario, not a customer. CapSeal is pre-launch. Every figure below is modelled from published industry data and stated assumptions, which are set out in full further down so you can disagree with them. We will replace these with named, measured references when we have them, and not before.

The situation

Where the organisation starts

A program processes roughly 85,000 applications a year, each with multiple supporting documents.
Assessors are the bottleneck. Processing times are a standing political problem, and every additional integrity check makes them worse.
Document fabrication services advertise openly. The program knows the documents are being produced; it cannot identify which ones at scale.

Modelled outcome

What the model produces

71%

of supporting evidence settled without assessor review

-38%

modelled reduction in median processing time

100%

of decisions with a replayable evidence record

2.4%

of lodgements carrying an integrity signal

The assumptions behind those numbers

85,000 applications a year, averaging 4.2 supporting documents each.
Assessor time on document verification of 6 minutes per application, from program-published processing data.
Sealed capture adoption at 65%, reflecting applicants offshore without the app.
Processing time reduction applies to the document verification step only, not to the full assessment.
No assumption is made about the fraud rate, which the program does not publish and we will not invent.

What changes

How the process differs

Applicants capture in a sealed flow

Supporting documents are photographed through the program's app where available. Provenance travels with the file rather than being asserted in a covering letter.

Assessors see what could not be settled

Evidence with a proven or declared basis is cleared automatically. Assessor attention goes to the residue, which is where judgement is actually needed.

Every decision is explicable years later

The proof object records what was checked and what each check measured. A tribunal can re-run it without the department's assistance.

Absent provenance is never adverse on its own

The policy treats an unsealed document exactly as the program treats one today. Applicants without a smartphone are not disadvantaged.

Honest limits

What this model does not claim

A model is an argument, not evidence. These figures show what follows if the assumptions hold for your organisation, and the point of publishing them in full is so you can check whether they do.

The full model behind these figures, with every input cited to published research, is in the industry brief.

Sealing evidence at capture does not detect every fabrication, does not establish that a truthful-looking document is true, and does not determine intent. The Product Disclosure sets out the boundary precisely.

Discuss a bounded integrity pilot.

One evidence type, one caseload, measured against your current baseline.

Book a pilot Check a file first Public-sector brief (PDF)