Documentation Readiness on MPI and SGI Claims: A Side-by-Side Working Reference
What evidence each program expects at write-up, claim, supplement, and post-repair — where MPI and SGI overlap, where they differ in operational detail, and how a single write-up checklist satisfies both without duplicating work.
Authors
Myles Chaput & Ali Jakvani
Published
Updated
Length
11 min read
Abstract
Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) and Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) administer the two most established public-insurer collision repair programs in Canada. Both programs reward documentation-first estimating: when the right evidence is attached at write-up, lines approve cleanly, supplement cycles compress, and shops perform well on the published RPS frameworks. The programs are not identical in operational detail — the rate documents are different, the supplement workflows differ in tooling, and the customer-experience surveys ask different questions — but the documentation requirements that drive 90%+ of disputed lines overlap substantially. This paper documents what each program expects at write-up, claim submission, supplement, and post-repair, and proposes a single per-VIN write-up checklist that satisfies both programs simultaneously. The framing is program-aligned: MPI and SGI publish the standards; the technology's job is to make compliance with both mechanical and non-duplicative.
Key findings
- 1Roughly 90% of the documentation requirements on MPI and SGI claims overlap. The differences are concentrated in form (which portal, which template) rather than substance (what evidence is required).
- 2Pre-repair scan, post-repair scan, OEM-procedure citations, calibration printouts, supplier invoices for non-reusable parts, and material-cost worksheets are required in both programs and drive the largest approval-rate differential at submission.
- 3MPI's appraisal and supplement workflow is administered through the Mitchell Connect estimating chain combined with MPI's claim portal; SGI's workflow is administered through SGI's accredited repair channel combined with the same Mitchell estimating layer. The estimate is the common artifact.
- 4A single per-VIN write-up checklist of 12 evidence items covers more than 90% of contested lines on both programs. Maintaining one checklist that satisfies both programs is materially more efficient than maintaining two.
- 5First-submission approval rates on lines with attached evidence run 25–37 percentage points above the same lines without evidence — the same effect documented in U.S. data, present in identical magnitude on MPI and SGI claims.
Body
1. The shared starting point
Both MPI and SGI publish their rate, procedure, and performance frameworks. Both run accreditation programs with explicit application and qualification criteria. Both administer the day-to-day claim workflow on a Mitchell estimating layer with a province-specific carrier portal and bulletin system. Both expect documentation attached at write-up rather than at supplement. Both compute RPS-style performance metrics and report them to accredited shops on a regular cadence.
The substantive overlap is large because the underlying drivers are the same. Both programs cover the same OEM parc; both inherit the same OEM position statements; both face the same ADAS calibration mandates; both pay for the same physical procedures. The published documents differ in form, but they converge in substance.
2. The documentation checklist that covers both programs
The evidence catalog that drives approval-rate differential on both MPI and SGI claims collapses into the same twelve items that show up in the broader North American literature. Each item has a clear purpose and a clean attachment point at write-up.
| Evidence type | Supports | MPI | SGI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-repair scan report | Calibration triggers, hidden-damage discovery, structural assessment | Required | Required |
| Post-repair scan report | Final compliance, fault-code clearance | Required | Required |
| Calibration printout / dynamic-drive log | ADAS calibration line support | Required | Required |
| OEM repair-procedure citation (URL or section) | Sectioning, foam, structural, calibration, sealer | Expected | Expected |
| Supplier invoice for non-reusable parts | Clips, retainers, brackets, fasteners on replaced panels | Required | Required |
| Material-cost calculation worksheet | Material rate adjustments, paint material lines | Expected | Expected |
| Damage photographs (timestamped, VIN-stamped) | Severity assessment, hidden-damage justification | Required | Required |
| Three-dimensional measurement printout | Structural straightening, frame pull | Required when applicable | Required when applicable |
| Sublet vendor invoice | Sublet alignment, glass, frame, ADAS | Required | Required |
| Repair note (technician-written) | Repair-vs-replace judgment, structural decisions | Expected | Expected |
| VIN-decoded equipment list | ADAS feature presence, OEM-position-statement applicability | Best practice | Best practice |
| Program rate / accreditation reference | Labor rate, parts sourcing, documentation requirements | LVT clause | Auto Body Repair Standards section |
The legend matters: 'required' is procedure-mandated by the program documents, 'expected' is the program's documented practice and the basis on which lines clear quickly, and 'best practice' is the upstream-knowledge step that lets the rest of the chain hold together. Treat all three categories as part of the write-up checklist; the only variable is whether the evidence travels with the line on day one.
3. Where the programs differ in operational detail
The 10% of difference between MPI and SGI is concentrated in form rather than substance. The rate documents are not the same — Manitoba's Light Vehicle Tariff and Saskatchewan's Auto Body Repair Standards are independently maintained — and the line-level allowance values do not always match. The supplement-submission workflow differs in tooling: MPI's claim portal and SGI's accredited-shop channel are administered separately. The customer-experience surveys ask different questions, and the RPS factor weighting is province-specific.
Operationally, that means: when a Manitoba shop and a Saskatchewan shop write the same physical repair on the same OEM platform, the underlying procedure citations are identical, the OEM-required calibration set is identical, the documentation attached at write-up is the same documentation, and the resulting estimates are the same shape. The forms differ; the substance does not.
| Element | MPI | SGI |
|---|---|---|
| Rate / procedure document | Light Vehicle Tariff (LVT) | Auto Body Repair Standards manual |
| Performance framework | Realized Parts Savings (RPS) | Realized Parts Savings (RPS) |
| Estimating layer | Mitchell Connect | Mitchell Connect |
| Carrier-side portal / channel | MPI claim portal + Body Shop & Glass Information bulletins | SGI Online services + accredited program bulletins |
| Customer experience input | MPI customer-experience survey | SGI customer-experience survey |
| Hail / catastrophe program | MPI hail program (separate intake / repair workflow) | SGI hail catastrophe program (separate intake / repair workflow) |
| Wildlife collision frequency in claim mix | Material in rural and northern Manitoba | Material across rural Saskatchewan |
4. The write-up workflow that satisfies both programs
The practical write-up workflow that produces clean estimates on both MPI and SGI claims is mechanical. It runs once, in the same order, regardless of which program the claim is filed under.
- 1Run the VIN. Decode the equipment list and identify the OEM position statements that apply.
- 2Pre-scan the vehicle. Attach the scan report to the estimate before the first line is written.
- 3Write the estimate against the relevant program manual (LVT or Auto Body Repair Standards). The rate, allowance, and procedure citation should match the manual at line level.
- 4For each OEM-procedure-mandated line, cite the position statement in the line note. Calibrations, foam replacement, sectioning notes, corrosion-protection restoration — all carry the citation.
- 5Attach the per-line evidence as it exists: supplier invoice for non-reusable parts, material-cost worksheet for material lines, sublet invoice for sublet lines, photos for severity and hidden-damage lines.
- 6Submit the estimate through the appropriate program channel (MPI claim portal for Manitoba, SGI online services for Saskatchewan).
- 7Post-repair: attach the post-repair scan report and any calibration printouts to the closing package. Final return to customer is conditional on this artifact in both programs.
The discipline is the same in both provinces. The portal varies; the manual varies; the procedure-citation library varies in the line of detail. The write-up checklist does not.
5. Approval-rate impact
The approval-rate differential between lines submitted with attached evidence and lines submitted without is the same on MPI and SGI claims as it is on U.S. claims. RocketPros corpus data on Manitoba and Saskatchewan estimates shows the spread tracking a 25–37 percentage-point difference across the same line categories — calibration, non-reusable parts, material rate, sublet, repair-vs-replace, refinish blend, and structural straightening hours. The empirical pattern is invariant to the province.
The implication is that the documentation discipline is portable. Shops that operate cleanly on MPI claims operate cleanly on SGI claims with minimal incremental work. Shops that operate cleanly on either operate cleanly on private DRP work for the same reasons. The evidence is the evidence.
6. The carrier perspective
From an MPI or SGI program-management perspective, documentation-first claim handling is the lowest-friction path to compounded outcomes: faster approval cycles, lower supplement frequency, lower LAE per claim, higher CSAT, and stronger RPS distributions across the network. Both programs already publish the documentation expectations; the operational lever is making the discipline mechanical at write-up rather than re-litigating it at dispute. The technology layer that helps shops align (RocketPros) and the program structure that publishes the rules (MPI, SGI) are complementary; neither replaces the other.
The customer-side outcome — Manitobans and Saskatchewan policyholders whose repairs close faster, with cleaner documentation and fewer comebacks — is the same outcome that benefits accredited shops on the RPS scorecard. The interests are aligned by design.
Implications
For shop owners and estimators
- Maintain one per-VIN write-up checklist that satisfies both MPI and SGI documentation expectations. The 12-item evidence catalog covers more than 90% of contested lines on either program.
- Treat the program manual (LVT for MPI, Auto Body Repair Standards for SGI) as the source of truth for rate, allowance, and procedure citation. Variance from the manual without a documented reason is the most common avoidable touch on either program.
- Attach the scan report, calibration printout, OEM citation, and supplier invoice at write-up — not at supplement. The data already exists in the shop; the only variable is whether it travels with the line.
- On wildlife-collision claims in either province, treat front-camera, front-radar, and headlamp calibration as default lines with attached OEM citations. The damage pattern intersects multiple calibration triggers in a single event.
For insurance carriers
- Documentation-first claim handling on MPI and SGI claims compounds the structural advantage of the public-insurer model. The published frameworks already compress dispute volume; documentation discipline at write-up extracts the remaining cycle-time and LAE benefit.
- The 25–37 percentage-point approval-rate differential between documented and undocumented lines is invariant across U.S. and Canadian programs. The lever is upstream evidence, not downstream scrutiny.
- Shop-network coaching to a single 12-item write-up checklist resolves the largest cluster of avoidable touches across both Manitoba and Saskatchewan claim books.
Frequently asked
Are MPI and SGI documentation requirements the same?+
Substantially the same. Roughly 90% of the documentation requirements on MPI and SGI claims overlap — pre/post-scan reports, OEM-procedure citations, calibration printouts, supplier invoices for non-reusable parts, material-cost worksheets, photographs, and sublet invoices are required or expected on both programs. The 10% of difference is concentrated in form (which portal, which manual reference) rather than substance.
What documentation is required on a calibration line for MPI or SGI?+
Both programs expect the calibration line to be supported by the OEM position statement that triggers it (cited in the line note) and the calibration printout or dynamic-drive log produced by the calibration tool. Lines submitted with both items attached approve cleanly; lines submitted without generate touches.
Can a Manitoba shop and a Saskatchewan shop use the same write-up checklist?+
Yes. The OEM procedure citations, the documentation-attached discipline, and the evidence types are the same in both provinces. The differences — the rate manual, the carrier portal, the customer-experience survey — are at the form level. The substance of the write-up is invariant across the two programs.
How much does documentation discipline actually move the approval rate on MPI and SGI claims?+
The approval-rate differential between documented and undocumented lines runs 25–37 percentage points across the same line categories that move it elsewhere — calibration, non-reusable parts, material rate, sublet, repair-vs-replace, refinish blend, and structural straightening. The empirical pattern is invariant to the program.
Is RocketPros endorsed by MPI or SGI?+
No. RocketPros is independent software and is not endorsed by, partnered with, or affiliated with Manitoba Public Insurance or Saskatchewan Government Insurance. RocketPros runs alongside the shop's existing Mitchell Connect setup, surfaces estimate-completeness signals at write-up, and helps shops align mechanically with the MPI and SGI programs as published. The carrier programs are the source of truth in every case.
Citations
- [1]Manitoba Public Insurance — Body Shop & Glass Information portal (program documents, bulletins, accreditation framework, Light Vehicle Tariff distribution).https://www.mpi.mb.ca/
- [2]SGI — Auto body repair program for accredited shops (program documents, bulletins, accreditation framework, Auto Body Repair Standards distribution).https://sgi.sk.ca
- [3]Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC), Auto Insurance in Canada — provincial program structure and Canadian severity benchmarks.https://www.ibc.ca
- [4]I-CAR Repairability Technical Support (RTS) database — OEM-procedure citation source.https://rts.i-car.com
- [5]OEM1Stop.com — consortium repair-procedure portal aggregating OEM position statements applicable to vehicles in the Manitoba and Saskatchewan parc.https://www.oem1stop.com
- [6]Society of Collision Repair Specialists, Repairer Driven News coverage of documentation requirements and approval cycles.https://www.repairerdrivennews.com
- [7]CCC Intelligent Solutions, Crash Course Report, 2024 Edition (referenced for cross-jurisdiction documentation-vs-approval-rate effect).https://cccis.com
What this looks like inside RocketPros
The audit logic, scoring, and documentation patterns in this paper map directly to four RocketPros modules. If you want this applied to your shop's real estimates, start with the module that fits the workflow you're trying to fix.
- RPS ComplianceTrack MPI, SGI, and DRP program risk before it affects scorecards.
- Estimate AnalysisCatch missed labor, materials, parts, and documentation gaps before submission.
- AutomationRead saved Mitchell, CCC, and Audatex files without manual upload.
- ADAS CalibrationSurface calibration triggers tied to sensors and OEM procedures.
Figures cited from CCC Crash Course, Mitchell Industry Trends, IIHS-HLDI, AAA Foundation, BLS, Statistics Canada, IBC, and provincial insurer reports are sourced from those organizations' published materials. Where RocketPros corpus analysis is referenced, it reflects aggregated estimate data across the platform's customer base and is presented for directional accuracy. Nothing in this paper constitutes legal, regulatory, or coverage advice. RocketPros is independent software and is not endorsed by or affiliated with MPI, SGI, ICBC, SAAQ, or any private auto insurer.