Yes. Run one bot that asks early which line the prospect needs, then branches into the right intake flow, or run separate bots per line via multibot plus display conditions. Most agencies prefer the second model because each line has its own producer team, its own carriers, and its own routing rules, and a dedicated bot per line is easier to tune and to log against than a single mega-bot covering everything.

The system prompt is configured to use 'quote', 'estimate', and 'illustrative' language and to never bind, confirm, or guarantee coverage. The bot never quotes a binding premium, never represents itself as a licensed producer, and surfaces the agency's licenses (states, lines, NAID where applicable) when asked. State-specific disclosures (California Notice, New York licensing language) live as pages and the bot links them when the conversation triggers the relevant context.

Yes. Encode your license map as a page or ACF table, and the bot uses the prospect's state to confirm whether the agency can write there, route to the producer licensed in that state, or politely decline and refer out. That single behaviour saves a remarkable amount of cleanup later, because the worst insurance leads are the ones that travel halfway through the funnel before anyone notices the agency isn't licensed in that state.

SleekAI logs every conversation in WordPress. Most agencies push transcripts and structured intake into AMS360, Applied Epic, EZLynx, HawkSoft, or NowCerts via webhook on the lead-creation event. The bot doesn't bind, doesn't pull credit, and doesn't quote, so the AMS still owns those steps, but the intake fields flow in cleanly so the producer doesn't retype anything when they pick up the lead.

Yes, at an educational level. The bot can describe what umbrella, flood, earthquake, sewer backup, equipment breakdown, and similar add-ons actually cover, when they typically come up, and what kind of risk profile usually benefits from them. The framing is consistently educational and the bot routes to a licensed producer for actual coverage recommendation, since recommendation in most states is a regulated activity that requires a producer.

GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet both handle insurance terminology well, particularly the carrier-versus-coverage distinction that smaller models tend to confuse. For commercial lines (BOP, WC, cyber, EPLI) the stronger models follow NAICS-based routing more reliably. Bring your own key for whichever provider you prefer, and switch the model per bot if you want a stronger model on commercial intake and a cheaper one on personal lines.

Every conversation is logged in your WordPress database with the model name, token usage, and page URL. Agencies typically export transcripts on a recurring schedule via webhook into their E and O documentation archive, alongside email and recorded phone communications. Retention is under your control, and the logs are searchable from the admin so the agency can locate a specific conversation if a coverage question comes up later.

Yes. The bot uses carrier appetite to route internally (which producer, which wholesale market, which decline) without revealing carrier names to the prospect unless that's the agency's style. Many agencies don't expose their carrier list until the producer call to keep market control. Others publish the carrier list openly. Either model is supported by what the bot tells the prospect versus what it captures in the transcript and the AMS payload.