Evidence quality

A claim with forty photos can have lower evidence quality than a claim with eight. The number of photos tells a reviewer how much effort was put into documentation. The quality of the evidence tells them whether any of it is verifiable.

Quantity without quality produces what reviewers sometimes call a photo dump: a large set of images that tell a compelling story but cannot be independently confirmed. No GPS coordinates. No server timestamps. No before record. Lots of detail, but none of the structural properties that make the detail credible.

Reviewers processing hundreds of claims per week run a fast triage. High-quality evidence signals a credible, experienced host and allows the reviewer to verify the claim quickly. Low-quality evidence triggers additional scrutiny, or a straightforward denial when the structural gaps are obvious.

Authenticity. Can the reviewer confirm the evidence is what the host says it is, without trusting the host? This dimension covers metadata integrity (server-verified timestamps and GPS coordinates), chain of custody (storage on infrastructure the host does not control), and tamper-evidence (original files that show a mismatch if edited). Evidence that cannot be authenticated is opinion, not proof.

Completeness. Does the evidence cover all the elements a reviewer needs to decide? This includes a before record (pre-stay inspection showing the area undamaged), an after record (post-stay inspection immediately after departure), documentation of the specific damaged items, and corroborating evidence for the claimed dollar amount (contractor quote, repair receipt). Missing any one of these forces the reviewer into discretionary judgment rather than evidence-based decision.

Timeliness. Was the evidence captured at the right moments and is the filing still within the window? This dimension covers how quickly the post-stay inspection was completed after checkout (ideally same day), when the claim was filed relative to the 14-day window, and whether the 72-hour guest contact period was observed before AirCover escalation. A complete and authentic set of evidence filed on day 14 scores lower on timeliness than the same evidence filed on day 3.

Presentation. Is the claim written in a way that signals a credible host filing a factual report? This covers the clarity of the damage description (specific and neutral rather than emotional), the format of the dollar amount (itemised with documentation rather than round and estimated), and the overall professionalism of the submission. Presentation is the smallest dimension but also the one hosts can improve most quickly before filing.

AirCover reviewers do not run a formal scoring rubric on each submission. They run a triage: can I verify the timeline, can I verify the evidence, does this look like a credible claim, and what does the dollar amount tell me about the host’s expectations?

High-quality evidence allows that triage to complete in under a minute. The reviewer opens the verification link, sees timestamped before-and-after pairs, confirms the GPS coordinates match the property, reads a neutral two-sentence damage description, and sees a specific itemised amount with a contractor quote attached. The decision is straightforward.

Low-quality evidence forces the reviewer to spend more time verifying, or makes verification impossible. When it takes effort, discretion increases. When verification is impossible, the default is denial.

Each dimension has fast levers that can be moved before the first submission.

Authenticity: confirm your photos retain original EXIF metadata by checking file properties on the original capture device before any transfer. If photos were shared through WhatsApp or downloaded from cloud storage, the metadata is likely gone. Re-capture from the original device or switch to software that records metadata server-side.

Completeness: add a contractor quote if you have only photos, attach saved guest messages if any exist, retrieve the cleaning invoice for the affected turnover. If a before record is missing for this claim, acknowledge it directly rather than leaving the gap unaddressed.

Timeliness: file as early as possible. If the window is narrowing, prioritise submission over assembling additional evidence. A timely claim with adequate evidence outperforms a late claim with excellent evidence.

Presentation: rewrite the claim description as a sequence of factual sentences. Replace adjectives with quantities. Replace round numbers with itemised amounts. Remove any language about the guest’s character or intent.