REINSURANCE · FUNCTION · PROTODESKRDM-03
SURFACE 10 / REINSURANCE / FUNCTION
CROSS-CLASS DEPENDENCY OWNER
This is the explicit protodesk. RDM-03 may create a decision territory that sits between established functions: no single team owns the whole dependency, yet several teams own fragments of the evidence and consequence.- Function
- Cross-Class Dependency Owner
- Surface question
- Ownership boundary. If no existing desk owns the whole dependency, where should the cross-class RDM-03 decision live? The bounded decision boundary is owned by each institution; see its profile.
- Role classes
- Chief Risk Officer / Chief Underwriting Officer / Head of Strategy · decision-owning role classes, confirmed per institution from public role evidence; not title-first routing.
- Governing question
- IF NO EXISTING DESK OWNS THE WHOLE DEPENDENCY, WHERE SHOULD THE CROSS-CLASS RDM-03 DECISION LIVE?
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 | DEPENDENCY BOUNDARY | Each function may see only the part of RDM-03 that touches its own remit. | A shared dependency object can create one bounded question without collapsing functional responsibilities. | What is the minimum common object that all affected desks need to recognise? |
| 02 | FRAGMENTED OWNERSHIP | Exposure, underwriting, engineering, actuarial and CRO teams may each own different links in the chain. | A protodesk can coordinate the decision without pretending a new department already exists. | Which existing owners hold the evidence needed to determine RDM-03? |
| 03 | DECISION OWNER | Evidence can circulate while no one owns the decision to act, test or kill. | A named decision owner can prevent the dependency from becoming an orphan risk. | Who has authority to decide whether RDM-03 changes anything? |
| 04 | CROSS-CLASS VIEW | Class-by-class management can obscure a dependency inherited by several books. | A cross-class view can reveal common exposure without requiring a new class taxonomy. | Where could RDM-03 connect decisions across classes? |
| 05 | EVIDENCE HANDOFF | Technical evidence may not travel cleanly into underwriting or portfolio decisions. | A defined handoff can preserve evidence state, uncertainty and falsifiers across desks. | What evidence must move between desks for the RDM-03 decision to remain intact? |
| 06 | ESCALATION TRIGGER | Teams may escalate based on interest or seniority rather than evidence. | A common trigger can define when the dependency deserves cross-functional attention. | What evidence threshold should activate cross-class review? |
| 07 | INTERVENTION OWNER | Even if the dependency survives, the best intervention may belong to a different team from the risk owner. | Separating dependency ownership from intervention ownership can expose new internal or commercial options. | Who should own the response if RDM-03 survives? |
| 08 | PROTODESK TEST | Creating a permanent structure too early would harden an unproven hypothesis into organisation design. | The protodesk can remain temporary until repeated decisions prove that a durable territory exists. | What repeated evidence would justify turning this protodesk into a recognised decision function? |
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
Ownership, evidence handoff, escalation logic and the cross-functional decision path if no single existing desk owns RDM-03.
CREATE · OPPORTUNITY REPORT
A shared dependency object, coordinated decision path and potentially a new cross-class decision territory.