Part of settlement from insurance included $2k for painting, but I could do this myself?

Bear with me…figuring this all out. The adjuster estimate (and subsequent check they wrote me) included $2k for painting as part of the total repair, but the painting would cost me $50-100 to do myself.

I can paint, so I'm happy to do this myself if it will save me money. But feels weird and I wouldn't have an estimate or invoice/receipt from a contractor proving the work was done. I guess at best I'd have a receipt from Sherman Williams that I bought the paint, lol. And maybe before and after photos.

Just wondering if this is kosher. I don't want to get in trouble with insurance, but it would also help a lot if I could save some $ since the total extend of damages is over $20k and I have a high deductible ($4k) so looking to use the "sweat equity" of painting myself to offset some of the deductible that I didn't get reimbursed for (no complaint there, I knew I could be on the hook when I chose that deductible).

The adjuster has not said anything about providing receipts/invoices after work is complete. They just said "send me the estimates you get and as long as they are less than what my estimate was, you are all good. If they add to higher, then I'll take a look and see if we need to send more money".

So this makes me believe that basically the money is mine and as long as I can do the repairs for less than their estimate, I am good to go and don't need to circle back on anything…but it's all so confusing and overwhelming because I want to make my house whole again, but also be cost conscious, but also not accidentally commit insurance fraud.