REINSURANCE · FUNCTION · 03RDM-03
SURFACE 10 / REINSURANCE / FUNCTION
TREATY / SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING
RDM-03 can create underwriting questions that are not simply 'more data-centre risk': whether the dependency changes attachment, wording, structure, pricing, cedant differentiation or the evidence required before capacity is offered.- Function
- Treaty / Specialty Underwriting
- Surface question
- Underwriting boundary. Does the underwriting boundary survive when separate risks share the same grid dependency? The bounded decision boundary is owned by each institution; see its profile.
- Role classes
- Chief Underwriting Officer / Head of Property Treaty Underwriting / Head of Specialty Underwriting · decision-owning role classes, confirmed per institution from public role evidence; not title-first routing.
- Governing question
- COULD RDM-03 ALTER ATTACHMENT, WORDING, STRUCTURE, PRICING OR CEDANT DIFFERENTIATION ACROSS RELEVANT BOOKS?
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 SELECTION | A cedant or portfolio may appear acceptable while carrying an unrecognised common grid dependency. | A dependency test could differentiate risks that look similar under conventional underwriting information. | Where could RDM-03 change a risk-selection decision? |
| 02 | CEDANT DIFFERENTIATION | Cedants may be compared without visibility into how their exposures interact with large-load / grid behaviour. | New evidence could support sharper differentiation rather than broad sector caution. | What would RDM-03 need to reveal to distinguish one cedant from another? |
| 03 | ATTACHMENT | Attachment assumptions may rely on loss behaviour that omits correlated system-level propagation. | A tested dependency pathway could indicate where attachment remains robust and where it may not. | Where could RDM-03 challenge an attachment assumption? |
| 04 | LIMIT / CAPACITY | Capacity may be offered without a clear view of common dependency across the underlying exposure. | A bounded dependency view could support more discriminating limit and capacity decisions. | Where could RDM-03 change how much capacity is offered? |
| 05 | WORDING | Existing wording may not align cleanly with a loss pathway that crosses data-centre and grid boundaries. | A clearer causal pathway could reveal which wording questions actually matter before changing terms. | Which wording assumption would RDM-03 force the underwriter to examine? |
| 06 | STRUCTURE | Traditional structure may not isolate the dependency if multiple exposures respond to the same contingency. | A new structure could be considered only if the dependency proves material and separable. | Could RDM-03 justify a different treaty or specialty structure? |
| 07 | PRICING | Price may not reflect a dependency that is absent from the current exposure and scenario view. | Evidence of material dependency could support differentiated pricing rather than generic loading. | What would have to be true for RDM-03 to justify a pricing change? |
| 08 | UNDERWRITING EVIDENCE | The underwriting file may not contain the operational or grid attributes needed to test RDM-03. | A focused evidence request could improve underwriting without requiring a wholesale data rebuild. | Which additional evidence would most change the underwriting decision? |
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
Attachment, wording, structure, pricing, cedant differentiation and underwriting assumptions that may need to be tested.
CREATE · OPPORTUNITY REPORT
New structures, pricing logic, differentiation and dependency-aware underwriting propositions.