Proof, not promises

Thirteen million claims. Two hours. Sixteen workers.

The EDI engine speaks X12, not one industry’s dialect. This page is the public measurement: a two-hour large-file soak on 30 June 2026. A private customer walkthrough is not included.

  • 13,443,911

    Claims processed

  • 10,210/s

    Sustained

  • 48,330/s

    Peak

  • 120 min

    16 workers

7,617 files. 100% success on the tiers that ran. Sixteen worker containers at 4 GB. PostgreSQL tuned — shared buffers 4 GB, max WAL 8 GB — on fastpool, a 16K-recordsize SSD mirror. The earlier single-file check still stands: a 517 KB file of 3,100 claims parses, validates, and projects in 0.0475 seconds.

THE SOAK

Load test 3

Claims per second in cyan, cumulative claims in amber, across 120 minutes as file size climbed. Throughput holds through the dense files, then the large single-file tiers stop the line. That stop is the finding, not a hidden miss.

Download the one-page summary
Dashboard for the 16-worker, two-hour large-file soak: 13,443,911 claims, 10,210 per second sustained

Three tests, same direction

Tests 2 and 3 are two-hour soaks. Test 1 is a single pass of about 28 minutes. The corpora differ — test 3 is weighted toward large files — so read this as a direction, not a controlled benchmark.

TestWorkersClaimsThroughputNotes
141.06 M (28 min)~622 /s avgBaseline, mixed sizes
286.10 M~910 /s loop · ~5,700 /s denseBefore Postgres tuning
31613.44 M10,210 /s sustained · 48,330 peakAfter Postgres + fastpool

What each tier did

TierIn the corpusProcessedNote
10 MB100100Full tier. Clean at high throughput.
50 MB10080Dense files. This tier drove the peak.
512 KB400400Full tier.
1 KB100,0007,037Small-file tail. Bound by per-file overhead.
100 MB1000Did not run. One file, one message, too large.
200 MB1000Did not run. Same ceiling, larger.

The ceiling is architectural

Ten- and fifty-megabyte files process cleanly at high throughput. A 100 MB or 200 MB file is base64-encoded into one message — about 140 MB and 279 MB — and parsed entirely in worker memory, on the order of 3–6 GB for 250–500 thousand claims. That overwhelms the broker and the per-worker budget no matter how many workers you add. Next unlock: chunk the file at the interchange boundary before enqueue, for files past roughly 50–70 MB.

  1. 01

    Government-grade X12 validation

    Integrity through implementation-guide checks, a loop-aware parser, and machine acknowledgments. Every issue is anchored to its segment, element, and loop.

  2. 02

    Coverage and coding scrub

    NCCI, NCD/LCD, modifier relationships, sequencing, eligibility, and duplicates — driven by versioned rule tables, not rules welded into the code.

  3. 03

    FHIR R4, both directions

    CARIN and Da Vinci profiles between legacy transactions and modern resources. The bridge, not a rewrite of the last thirty years.

  4. 04

    Tiered AI, supervised

    A fast path for conforming work. Harder cases go to scored tiers and specialist agents under a supervisor policy. Confidence and trigger reasons are recorded for replay.

  5. 05

    Tamper-evident provenance

    Deterministic record identity and an append-only Merkle journal. When “trust us” is not good enough, the math is.

Port it for your stack

EDI is not one industry’s problem. Shipping and logistics operators who want this engine on their own transaction sets get the same rigor, in their formats.

If your operation runs on EDI, say so

Open guardrails

Local-81 is the public deploy and runbook control plane: dry-run first, compliance and hardening reports included. Commercial provenance internals stay private. That split is the strategy.