Document Forgery Detection: AI vs Traditional Methods for Insurance
AI-powered document forgery detection vs traditional manual review for insurance. How each method handles police reports, medical records, and repair estimates.
Every insurance claim is a collection of documents. Police reports. Medical records. Repair estimates. Proof of ownership. Invoices. Contractor assessments. Identity documents. Correspondence.
Each document is a potential target for forgery. And the tools to create convincing forgeries have changed fundamentally.
Traditional document verification relies on human expertise: experienced investigators who know what a genuine police report looks like, how a real medical record is formatted, what a legitimate repair estimate should contain. This expertise remains valuable — but it can no longer keep pace with AI-generated documents that are increasingly indistinguishable from genuine ones.
This article compares AI-powered and traditional approaches to document forgery detection, document by document.
The Document Threat Landscape
What AI Can Generate
Large language models (GPT-4, Claude, Gemini, open-source alternatives) produce text that is grammatically correct, contextually appropriate, and formatted for specific document types. Combined with image generation tools, they can produce:
- Police reports with correct formatting, case numbers, officer information, and incident narratives
- Medical records with appropriate clinical terminology, ICD-10 codes, treatment plans, and provider details
- Repair estimates with itemised costs, part numbers, labor rates, and technical descriptions
- Invoices and receipts with business details, line items, tax calculations, and payment terms
- Legal documents with correct formatting, citation styles, and institutional letterheads
- Identity documents with realistic photos, formatting, and security feature approximations
The quality is high enough that casual review — the level most claims documents receive — is unlikely to catch the forgery.
The Volume Problem
A single claims adjuster may review hundreds of documents per week across dozens of claims. The time available for scrutinising each document is measured in minutes, not hours. Even a highly experienced adjuster performing conscientious review cannot examine every document with the attention that forgery detection requires.
This volume-versus-scrutiny mismatch is the core vulnerability that document fraud exploits — and that AI detection addresses.
Traditional Detection Methods
Visual and Formatting Inspection
How it works: Trained investigators examine documents for visual anomalies — incorrect logos, wrong fonts, inconsistent formatting, alignment errors, suspicious quality variations.
Strengths:
- Effective against crude forgeries (poor-quality copies, obvious formatting errors)
- Leverages institutional knowledge of what genuine documents look like
- Can catch physical document alterations (erasures, overwriting, cut-and-paste)
Limitations:
- Depends entirely on the reviewer’s familiarity with the specific document type and issuing institution
- AI-generated documents with correct formatting pass visual inspection
- Time-intensive — impractical at claims volume
- Subjective — different reviewers may reach different conclusions
- Cannot detect pixel-level or statistical anomalies
Contact Verification
How it works: The investigator contacts the institution that allegedly issued the document (hospital, police department, repair shop) to verify its authenticity.
Strengths:
- Definitive — if the institution confirms or denies issuance, the question is settled
- Catches all forms of forgery, regardless of quality
Limitations:
- Extremely time-consuming — each verification may take hours or days
- Not scalable — verifying every document on every claim is operationally impossible
- Institutions may not respond promptly (or at all)
- The contact information on the document may itself be fraudulent (directing calls to a fraudster rather than the real institution)
- Applies only to documents with verifiable issuers — personal documents, handwritten notes, and informal records can’t be verified this way
Forensic Document Examination
How it works: Specialist forensic examiners use physical and optical techniques to analyze documents: examining paper, ink, printing methods, signatures, stamps, and security features.
Strengths:
- Gold standard for physical document authentication
- Court-accepted methodology with established evidentiary standards
- Can detect sophisticated physical forgeries (altered dates, signature grafting, security feature replication)
Limitations:
- Requires physical access to the original document (increasingly rare in digital-first claims)
- Highly specialized skill — few examiners available
- Very expensive per document
- Completely inapplicable to born-digital documents (PDFs created electronically, never printed)
- Slow — turnaround measured in weeks
AI-Powered Detection Methods
Statistical Text Analysis
How it works: AI models analyze the text content of documents for statistical signatures of AI generation. This includes:
- Perplexity analysis — measuring how “surprising” the text is to a language model. AI-generated text tends to have lower perplexity (more predictable word choices) than human-written text.
- Burstiness detection — human writing naturally varies in sentence length, complexity, and style within a document. AI-generated text is more uniform.
- Stylometric analysis — comparing the writing style of a document against the expected style for its type. A police report should read like a police report, not like an AI’s approximation of one.
Catches: AI-generated text content in police reports, medical records, statements, and other narrative documents.
Limitations: Becoming harder as language models improve. Works best on longer documents. May be less reliable on short, formulaic documents (invoices, receipts) where human and AI writing are inherently similar.
Layout and Formatting Forensics
How it works: AI models compare the visual layout of a document against templates and known examples from the purported issuing institution.
- Template matching — comparing the document’s layout (header position, font usage, field arrangement, logo placement) against a database of verified genuine documents from the same institution
- Micro-formatting analysis — examining details that forgers often get wrong: line spacing, character kerning, margin widths, paragraph indentation, table alignment
- Logo and seal verification — comparing institutional logos, stamps, and seals against authenticated originals at the pixel level
Catches: Documents that use approximately correct but not precisely accurate formatting — the most common failure mode for AI-generated institutional documents.
Digital Forensics
How it works: Analyzing the digital structure of the document file itself, independent of its visual content.
- PDF structure analysis — examining the internal structure of PDF files for signs of editing, layer manipulation, or generation from non-standard tools
- Font analysis — checking whether embedded fonts match those used by the purported issuing institution
- Image layer analysis — detecting inserted or manipulated elements within the document (e.g., a photo or signature pasted into a generated document)
- Metadata examination — creation dates, authoring software, modification history, and other file-level metadata that may contradict the document’s claims
Catches: Documents that are visually convincing but structurally different from genuine ones — a common pattern with AI-generated documents.
Cross-Document Consistency Checking
How it works: AI analyses multiple documents within a single claim for internal consistency.
- Date alignment — do dates across different documents form a consistent and plausible timeline?
- Name and reference matching — do names, policy numbers, case numbers, and other identifiers match across all documents?
- Factual consistency — does the medical record describe injuries consistent with the police report? Does the repair estimate address the damage documented in photos?
- Source consistency — are documents from the same institution formatted consistently?
Catches: Fraud schemes where multiple documents were independently fabricated without ensuring mutual consistency — a common weakness when different AI tools or different prompts generate different documents.
Head-to-Head Comparison
| Dimension | Traditional Methods | AI-Powered Detection |
|---|---|---|
| Speed | Minutes to days per document | Seconds per document |
| Scale | Hundreds per week (per investigator) | Millions per day |
| Crude forgery detection | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ |
| Sophisticated AI forgery detection | ★★ | ★★★★ |
| Physical document analysis | ★★★★★ | ★ (requires digital input) |
| Cross-document consistency | ★★★ (if investigator reviews all) | ★★★★★ (automated) |
| Consistency of results | Variable (depends on reviewer) | Consistent (same model, same result) |
| Cost per document | High | Low |
| Court admissibility | Established (forensic examiner testimony) | Emerging (requires methodology documentation) |
| Audit trail | Manual documentation | Automatic |
The Integrated Approach
The strongest document verification combines both approaches:
AI handles volume and screening. Every document on every claim is automatically analyzed for generation indicators, formatting anomalies, and cross-document consistency. This catches the majority of forgeries without manual effort.
Human expertise handles edge cases and evidence. When AI flags a document, a trained investigator reviews the findings, conducts contact verification where warranted, and prepares evidence for legal proceedings. Human judgment handles the nuance that AI may miss.
Forensic examination handles litigation. When a flagged document proceeds to legal action, traditional forensic document examination provides court-tested expert testimony alongside the AI forensic report.
This layered approach provides coverage at scale (AI) with depth where needed (human) and legal defensibility when required (forensic).
Implementation for Insurers
Quick Wins
- Deploy AI text analysis on narrative documents (police reports, medical records, statements). These are the highest-value targets and the most common forgery types.
- Implement cross-document consistency checking across all documents within each claim. This catches schemes where multiple documents were independently fabricated.
- Add metadata analysis on all digital documents. Check creation dates, authoring software, and modification history for anomalies.
Medium-Term
- Build template databases for common document sources (major hospitals, police departments, repair chains). Enable AI layout matching against verified genuine templates.
- Integrate document analysis with image analysis for claims that include both photos and documents — ensuring the photo evidence and document evidence tell the same story.
Long-Term
- Establish verified submission channels that provide cryptographic proof of document origin — reducing the opportunity for document injection.
- Share forgery intelligence with industry bodies to improve collective detection capability.
Related Reading
deetech analyses documents alongside images, video, and audio — providing comprehensive evidence verification for insurance claims. Our forensic document analysis identifies AI-generated text, formatting anomalies, and cross-document inconsistencies. Request a demo.
Sources cited in this article: