Aurora Warranty Operations

The company

Aurora Motor Company (Australia): 118 dealers, 184,212 vehicles in warranty, one quarter of claims.

National sales company for a full-line brand. Every claim below was generated to look like the real thing: a VIN, a dealer, a repair order, a fault code, a part at a price-file price, labour against a flat-rate time, and a supplier who may or may not owe Aurora the money back.

Warranty spend, accrued

$101m2.6% of $3.9bn revenue · provision on the balance sheet, tested by the auditor

Leakage inside it

$12m12% of spend · 8× the $1.5m it costs to process 105k claims a year by hand

Supplier recovery gap

$13m22% of spend recovered today, 35% where attribution is systematic

Addressable, every year

$25mBefore a single role changes. This page shows one quarter of it, claim by claim.

ReadyPress Run to replay the quarter, claim by claim, in submission order

0 / 0

0Claims processed

—Touchless (no Aurora person)

0Adjusted or rejected by control

0Held for dealer evidence

0Waiting for a person

$0Leakage prevented

$0Supplier recovery raised

—Median time to decision

Claims floor · live

What the agents are deciding, as they decide it

The floor is quiet. Run the quarter to watch it fill.

Leakage prevented, by path

Where the money was about to go

Eleven ways a claim pays out more than policy allows. Each one is a control the agents run on every claim, not a sample.

Supplier recovery, by source

What comes back from the supply base

Routine recovery is parts at price under each supplier's agreement. Lot recovery adds labour and handling once a batch defect is proven. Campaign recovery is full cost under the recall agreement.

Volume and leakage, daily

Claims submitted per day, leakage caught per day

Claims submittedLeakage prevented, $

Batch defects

Three supplier lots and one recall, found by trend not by luck

Detection rule: twelve claims on one part, one model, one build window, at more than three times the baseline rate. A manual team usually sees it at the month-end review, if the same analyst reads all three months.

Dealer patterns

Labour claimed against flat-rate time, by dealer

Each dot is a dealer. Per-claim tolerance is ±10%, so a dealer running 11% over on every claim never trips a claim-level control. The pattern does, after thirty days and forty claims.

Supplier scorecard

Who owes Aurora what, this quarter

Failure map

Claims per 1,000 vehicles, model by component family

Read down a column to see which models a supplier's parts are hurting. Read across a row to see which family drives a model's cost.

Human · Decisions that need a person

Nothing here pays a dealer, charges a supplier or opens an investigation without a signature.

The agents prepare each decision with its evidence and a recommendation. The warranty manager signs one at a time or signs the batch.

The queue fills as the quarter runs.

The audited number

Warranty provision, Q4 FY26

Bridge	Amount	Moved by this run

The provision the auditor tests. Every line above arrives in it with an evidence pack: entitlement basis, price-file match, flat-rate time, supplier attribution, and who signed.

The quarter, before and after

Same claims, same policies, different process

Manual claims team, Aurora's baseline

→

Agents plus one warranty manager

Baseline is Aurora's own prior-year rate card for the same quarter: leakage caught by sampling, recovery limited to routine parts claims, eleven-day mean cycle time. Illustrative, and generated alongside the claims.

Claim inspector

A whole quarter of claims, agentified