REINSURANCE · FUNCTION · 05RDM-03
SURFACE 10 / REINSURANCE / FUNCTION
CRO / ENTERPRISE RISK
RDM-03 can cross classes, portfolios and functions without a natural owner. The enterprise-risk question is therefore not only how severe it might be, but whether it creates an unowned common dependency and which decision should be escalated.- Function
- CRO / Enterprise Risk
- Surface question
- Risk boundary. Does the risk boundary stop where the business lines do? The bounded decision boundary is owned by each institution; see its profile.
- Role classes
- Group Chief Risk Officer / Chief Risk Officer / Head of Enterprise Risk Management · decision-owning role classes, confirmed per institution from public role evidence; not title-first routing.
- Governing question
- IF THE MECHANISM CROSSES CLASSES AND FUNCTIONS, WHO OWNS THE ENTERPRISE CONSEQUENCE AND THE DECISION TO ACT?
GUARD & CREATE
Each row shows a separate decision pathway through the dependency: what this function may need to guard from it, what the dependency could help it create, and which decision may change.
| # | Decision area | Guard from this dependency | Create with this dependency | Decision question |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | RISK OWNERSHIP | The dependency may sit between underwriting, exposure, modelling, engineering and operations. | Naming the dependency can create a clearer enterprise owner or escalation route. | Who owns RDM-03 if no existing risk category contains the whole mechanism? |
| 02 | RISK TAXONOMY | RDM-03 may not fit cleanly inside cyber, property, operational or catastrophe categories. | A dependency view can complement taxonomy without forcing premature reclassification. | Where should RDM-03 sit in the enterprise risk view if it survives? |
| 03 | CROSS-CLASS EXPOSURE | Several classes may inherit the same external system dependency while being managed separately. | A cross-class view could reveal common exposure that no single class sees alone. | Where could RDM-03 connect classes currently governed independently? |
| 04 | RISK APPETITE | Risk appetite may be expressed by class or peril rather than by dependency concentration. | A dependency-level boundary could inform appetite without replacing existing limits. | Would RDM-03 require a new appetite question or only a reinterpretation of existing ones? |
| 05 | SCENARIO ESCALATION | A modelled system event may not reach the threshold for enterprise scenario review. | A bounded trigger could define when RDM-03 deserves escalation and when it does not. | What evidence threshold should move RDM-03 into enterprise scenario testing? |
| 06 | CAPITAL IMPLICATION | Hidden correlation could alter enterprise views of concentration and diversification. | A tested dependency could sharpen capital discussion while still allowing NULL if immaterial. | Where could RDM-03 change the enterprise view of diversification or concentration? |
| 07 | GOVERNANCE | No standing committee may own a dependency that cuts across traditional risk silos. | A named decision pathway can prevent the issue becoming everyone's concern and nobody's decision. | Which governance body should act if RDM-03 survives initial testing? |
| 08 | KILL / CONTINUE | Emerging risks can consume attention without a disciplined stopping rule. | Explicit evidence gates can tell the CRO when to investigate further and when to kill the hypothesis. | What evidence would justify continuing, parking or killing RDM-03? |
This is the governing question for this decision territory. The matrix above decomposes it into the smaller consequences, opportunities and questions that can be tested independently.
GUARD · CONSEQUENCE REPORT
Cross-class exposure pathways, enterprise ownership questions, escalation points, capital implications and disproof criteria.
CREATE · OPPORTUNITY REPORT
Governance, escalation, cross-functional controls and strategic response options.