Start: The near-miss in minutes

• Tell me briefly how the late statutory filing unfolded and who on your team first raised the alarm
• When you follow that timeline, which single step felt most fragile or ad hoc Options: Manual mapping from policy admin, Spreadsheet tie-outs, Last-minute reconciliations, Sign-off and submission step, Other
• Who signs the filing today and who would be held accountable if a material error triggered an exam or penalty Options: Controller, Chief Compliance Officer, CFO, Head of Finance Operations, Cross-functional sign-off, Other
• How quickly did leadership expect the issue to be fixed once it was noticed Options: Same day, Within 48 hours, Within one week, Longer than one week, Not defined
• What immediate operational step reduced the regulator's concern most effectively during the remediation Options: Resubmission with notes, Root cause memo, Additional reconciliations, Leadership escalation, Other

Where the process breaks first

• Challenge this assumption for me, your current reporting flow depends on one or two people—what risk would make you stop the current process immediately Options: Loss of key analyst, System migration, Regulator request for explanation, Audit finding, Other
• Walk me through your end-to-end filing workflow starting from source extraction, and name the concrete artifacts used at each handoff
• List the specific filing templates and schedules you produce each period, for example annual statutory, NAIC Schedules, Call Report modules, or risk calculations Options: Statutory annual statement, Quarterly statutory, NAIC Schedules (e.g., P, R), Call Reports, Risk-based capital schedules, Other
• Which step currently requires the most manual mapping or spreadsheet work, and roughly how many FTE hours does that consume per filing cycle Options: Source extraction, Cross-schedule tie-outs, Adjusting journal entries, Preparing submission files, Regulator reconciliation requests
• Give an example of a field or schedule that often disagrees between systems and why you think that happens
• If that disagreement persists across three consecutive cycles, what policy or action would you take next Options: Escalate to controller, Open an internal investigation, Engage external consultant, Convert to manual override, Other

Where your data actually lives and who controls it

• Point to the systems that must feed a correct filing for you, and identify the single most critical integration endpoint Options: Policy administration system, General ledger/ERP, Investment accounting, Claims warehouse, Trust/escrow system, Other
• Describe the access method and current owner for each connector you rely on, for example database read, API, SFTP, or vendor extract
• How often do source extracts run and which extract schedule would block a timely filing if delayed Options: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Ad hoc, Other
• Which of these data quality issues show up most often in your source systems Options: Missing keys or policy IDs, Out-of-sync ledgers, Stale investment positions, Duplicate records, Inconsistent classification
• Who on your team is the named owner for granting integration access, and is that person available for a deployment kickoff within two weeks Options: CIO/IT owner, Data governance owner, Controller, Third-party vendor, Not assigned
• If an API or extract is not available for a critical system, what would you prefer we try first, direct DB read, scheduled flat-file, or vendor-assisted pull Options: Direct DB read, Scheduled flat-file, Vendor-assisted pull, Custom integration build, Other

How validations and failure modes actually show up in your world

• Imagine our validation engine flagged a cross-schedule inconsistency that previously went undetected, how would your team respond and who must approve any correction
• How frequently do you discover post-submission adjustments or restatements, and which one caused the last regulator inquiry Options: Within last quarter, Within last year, More than a year ago, Never
• Which validation failure type would cause you to halt a submission completely rather than submit with an explanation Options: Material misstatement, Missing schedule, Reconciliation mismatch > threshold, Missing signatures, Other
• Tell me about the last time a validation error came from a mapped field versus a transformation rule, what was the root cause
• What tolerance or threshold for cross-schedule differences does leadership consider acceptable before a filing is blocked, for example percent or dollar amount Options: 0%/exact match, 0.1% to 0.5%, 0.5% to 2%, Above 2% unacceptable, Not defined
• If our validation reduces your post-submission adjustments by the expected amount, what internal approval would be needed to accelerate procurement this quarter Options: CFO signoff, Controller approval, Compliance sponsor OK, Procurement approval, Board-level approval

What's getting in the way — people, policy, or systems

• Challenge: is the risk here mainly technical, governance, or resourcing, and which of those three would stop this project from moving forward right now Options: Technical integration gaps, Governance or approval delays, Insufficient staff capacity, Budget constraints, Other
• Who currently documents exception handling and audit trails for filings, and where is that documentation stored Options: Finance ops runbook, Compliance binder, Confluence/wiki, Local spreadsheets, Not documented
• Describe your current training plan for new analysts who must understand filing rules and exception workflows
• Which regulatory or legal approvals could gate a timeline for connecting to source systems or moving data to a new environment Options: Data privacy review, Security assessment, Legal contract, Regulator notification, None
• How many full time equivalents would need to be dedicated during the mapping and parallel run phases to meet a six week pilot timeline Options: 0-1, 2-3, 4-5, More than 5, Unsure
• If one of these constraints cannot be cleared within your target window, what is the minimum change that would still let the engagement proceed Options: Scope a pilot on a single schedule, Use anonymized sample data, Extend timeline, Provide temporary consultant support, Other

Competitive landscape, the other options you are weighing

• Name the alternatives you are actively considering or have recently evaluated for regulatory reporting automation, including internal build plans Options: Commercial reporting platform, Internal build, Consulting firm implementation, Maintain current spreadsheets, Other
• What would have to remain true about your current spreadsheet-driven process for you to decide not to change it Options: Low error history, Budget limits, Sufficient internal expertise, No regulator pressure, Other
• Who internally is advocating for an in-house solution and what concerns do they raise about outside vendors
• If you chose to stay with an incumbent vendor, what measurable improvement would you need to see in three months to avoid a reprocurement Options: Reduction in errors by %, Faster submission time, Better audit trail, Lower cost, Other
• Which proof points from a competing vendor would cause you to accelerate selection immediately Options: Live customer reference with similar stack, Pilot results showing X% fewer adjustments, Clear API connectivity to our systems, Fixed-price delivery, Other

Operational readiness and connectors—practical gating questions

• List the exact source systems we would need to connect to for a representative pilot and indicate whether APIs or extracts are currently available Options: API available, Scheduled extract available, Only manual export, No access, Unsure
• Who owns each of those systems and are they authorized today to grant the credentials needed for a test environment within 14 days Options: System owner available and authorized, Owner available but needs approval, Owner not assigned, Requires vendor permission
• Describe any regulatory restrictions on moving or masking data for a pilot, such as CI/PII rules or state-level data residency
• How clean is your reference data for mapping keys like policy IDs, account numbers, or investment identifiers on a scale from 1 to 5 Options: 1 - very poor, 2 - below average, 3 - mixed, 4 - mostly clean, 5 - clean and canonical
• If a connector required a short-term service account or an agent installed on-premises, what approval process and timeline would that trigger Options: Immediate IT approval available, Security review required (1-2 weeks), Formal procurement and contract (4+ weeks), Not possible
• Is there any internal policy or regulator covenant that would prevent test filings or parallel runs against live agencies Options: Allowed with controls, Requires regulator notification, Not permitted, Unsure

Acceptance criteria, success signals, and who needs to be convinced

• If a pilot demonstrates improved accuracy and fewer post-submission adjustments, what specific metric or threshold would make you ready to expand the solution organization-wide Options: Reduction in adjustments by %, Zero material errors for two cycles, Faster closing by days, Audit trail completeness confirmation, Other
• Which stakeholder must be visibly satisfied before budget is released, and what evidence do they require Options: CFO - cost/benefit, Controller - reconciliation accuracy, Chief Compliance Officer - auditability, CIO - integration security, Other
• Tell me the specific report types and schedules you want included in a pilot to prove value, for example Schedule P and quarterly statutory Options: Schedule P (loss triangles), Quarterly statutory statement, NAIC call report modules, RBC calculations, Investment schedules, Other
• What timeline would compel you to sign a pilot agreement this quarter if all acceptance criteria were met Options: Immediately, Within 2 weeks, Within 1 month, Next quarter, Unsure
• Which single unresolved legal, security, or business question would kill the deal for you Options: Data residency prohibition, Unable to access key system, Unacceptable vendor SLA, Cost exceed budget, Other

Practical next steps and quick wins

• Name three concrete artifacts you can share in the next week to enable a scoped pilot, such as sample extracts, prior filing files, or mapping rules Options: Sample system extracts, Prior submission files, Current mapping spreadsheets, Access to test environment, Exception handling docs
• Who should attend a 30 minute technical kickoff for a pilot and who must have veto authority over connecting a source system Options: Controller, CIO/IT owner, Compliance sponsor, Data governance owner, External vendor owner
• If we agree a two-schedule pilot, what is your preferred pilot window to run mapping, validation, and a parallel filing Options: 2-4 weeks, 4-6 weeks, 6-8 weeks, Quarterly cycle
• What would you need from us in the first week to feel confident this pilot will be low risk Options: Detailed runbook, Security documentation, Reference calls with similar customers, Clear acceptance criteria, Other
• Finally, who will make the final go/no-go decision at the end of a pilot and on what date can they commit to deciding

• Solution Experience — Reporting Failure Modes

• Confirm the current state and its cost
• Customer confirms the demonstrated workflow eliminates the manual mapping and reconciliation rework that led to the late filing.
• Provide a representative sample of the reconciliations and the last late filing's source extracts for a tailored prototype run.
• Customer confirms the validation rules shown catch their top cross-schedule failure modes and that the exception workflow assigns clear owners.
• Recreate your failure mode with your scenario
• Run a tailored prototype using the provided sample data and deliver the validation results, exception list, and an initial gap report before the follow-up session.
• Prove automated extraction for your sources
• Draft proposed acceptance criteria for filing correctness, including validation thresholds and reconciliation sign-off rules, and circulate for review.
• Customer agrees on the specific sample data, acceptance thresholds, and next evidence steps required before a pilot or commercial decision.
• Prove cross-schedule validation on your failure examples
• Identify the internal stakeholders who must sign off on acceptance criteria and their decision timelines.
• Show the audit trail and exception evidence
• Validate this maps to your needs
• Agree next evidence steps and acceptance criteria

• Solution Experience — Reporting Failure Modes
• Solution Experience Deck
• Solution Brief — Automated Regulatory Reporting

• meeting
• slides
• document

• Connect Source Systems and Ingest Data
• Configure Source-to-Report Data Transformations
• Generate Schedule P Loss Triangles
• Produce Statutory Annual and Quarterly Statements
• Compute Risk-Based Capital (RBC) Calculations
• Generate Call Reports, HMDA, CRA, and BSA Filings
• Execute Cross-Schedule Validation and Consistency Checks
• Automate Inter-Schedule Reconciliations and Tie-Outs
• Configure Exception Handling Workflows
• Transmit Filings to Regulatory Agencies
• Incorporate Regulatory Rule Changes into Filing Logic
• Reconcile and Validate Prior Filings Against Current Logic
• Deliver Audit Trail and Submission Evidence Package
• Train Staff on Exception Handling and Filing Review

Connect Source Systems and Ingest Data

• Which source systems do you need connected and ingested (policy administration, general ledger, claims warehouse, investment accounting)? Options: Policy administration system, General ledger (GL), Claims data warehouse, Investment accounting system, Payroll/HR feeds, Other
• How many legal entities / company codes and chart-of-accounts slices must be ingested for your statutory footprint? Options: 1, 2-5, 6-20, More than 20
• Do you have functional endpoints for each system to support ingestion (REST API, direct DB read, SFTP extract)? Options: REST API available, Direct database read available, SFTP extracts available, Only manual exports available, No endpoints — custom work required
• Provide the availability and delivery timeline for representative sample extracts from each source system you listed.
• What connector coverage acceptance threshold will you require to confirm ingestion scope (for example number of systems connected and verified)? Options: All listed sources connected and verified, 90% of listed sources connected and verified, Core systems only (policy, GL, claims) connected, Custom metric — describe in next field

Configure Source-to-Report Data Transformations

• List the report destinations you expect mappings for (Schedule P, statutory quarterly, RBC, Call Report, HMDA, BSA). Options: Schedule P, Statutory annual statement, Statutory quarterly statement, RBC calculation, Call Report, HMDA/CRA/BSA
• Which policy-level attributes must be normalized in transformation rules (policy ID, inception date, coverage type, premium basis)? Options: Policy ID, Inception/renewal date, Coverage type, Premium basis, Ceded/reinsurance flags, Other
• Do you expect automated general ledger account mapping via rules or use of uploadable manual mapping tables? Options: Automated GL mapping rules, Manual mapping tables uploaded by your team, Hybrid: automated with manual overrides
• Specify the validation threshold for mapping accuracy you expect for automated mappings before manual review (for example percent of transactions auto-mapped). Options: >= 99%, >= 98%, >= 95%, No threshold — manual review required
• Who in your organization will be the approver for transformation rules and field mappings (role and contact team)?

Generate Schedule P Loss Triangles

• Which Schedule P lines and reserve origins do you require (paid, incurred, case, IBNR, development by origin)? Options: Paid loss triangles, Incurred loss triangles, Case reserves, IBNR, By ceded/reinsurance
• Do you require development of triangles by origin year, accident year, or both for statutory disclosures? Options: Origin year, Accident year, Both
• Provide the historical period (years/quarters) you want included in triangle generation for comparison to prior NAIC filings. Options: 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, Custom — specify
• Include adjustments for ceded reinsurance, salvage, or subrogation in triangle calculations? Options: Yes — include ceded and salvage adjustments, No — use gross amounts, Partial — include ceded only
• What acceptance evidence for triangle accuracy will you require (for example reconciliation to prior NAIC Schedule P within a specified percent)? Options: Match prior filed Schedule P within 0.5%, Match within 1%, Documented reconciliation with variance explanations, Other — describe

Produce Statutory Annual and Quarterly Statements

• Which statutory statements and state jurisdictions must you produce for this engagement (NAIC blank codes or state list)?
• How should intercompany eliminations and consolidations be applied across your statutory entities for the statement roll-up? Options: Entity-level only, Group consolidation with eliminations, Multiple consolidation views required
• Do you require comparative prior-year columns and handling of restatements in the produced statutory statements? Options: Yes — comparative and restatement handling, No — current period only, Conditional — only for selected schedules
• Which output templates or submission formats do you require for state and NAIC submissions (XML, PDF, Excel, XBRL)? Options: NAIC XML, PDF binder, Excel workpapers, XBRL, Other
• Who on your team will verify and provide narrative footnotes and manual statement entries prior to submission?

Compute Risk-Based Capital (RBC) Calculations

• Which RBC formula set applies to the entities in scope (NAIC life, health, property-casualty)? Options: Life RBC, Health RBC, Property-Casualty RBC, Multiple — specify
• Do you require asset schedules aligned to investment accounting including market value adjustments for RBC inputs? Options: Yes — market value alignment, No — book value only, Partial — selected portfolios
• List any risk factor overrides, caps, or controller adjustments that must be configurable in the RBC calculation.
• How frequently do you want RBC recalculated for internal review and regulator reporting (monthly, quarterly, event-driven)? Options: Monthly, Quarterly, Quarterly plus event-driven, On-demand
• Indicate a materiality threshold for RBC variance from your current system that should trigger a formal investigation. Options: > 1%, > 3%, > 5%, Other — specify

Generate Call Reports, HMDA, CRA, and BSA Filings

• Which agency report types apply to your entities in scope (Call Report, HMDA, CRA, BSA) and for which legal entities? Options: Call Report (FFIEC), HMDA, CRA, BSA/AML
• Are agency-specific identifiers and institution codes already assigned and available for submission instance population? Options: Yes — all codes available, Partially available, No — codes need to be obtained
• Do you require field-level redaction or masking for HMDA or BSA extracts to protect PII prior to storage or review? Options: Yes — masking required, No — PII permitted in staging, Masking only for exported artifacts
• What test-submission environment access do you have for agency schemas (agency test endpoints, vendor test portal, none)? Options: Agency test endpoint available, Vendor sandbox available, No test environment — need access support
• Who in your organization will be the approver for agency-specific filing schemas and final instance validation?

Execute Cross-Schedule Validation and Consistency Checks

• List the critical cross-schedule checks you need enforced (for example Schedule P totals vs statutory reserve lines, Schedule F vs investment schedules).
• Do you require automated exceptions to be routed to named reconciler roles with required SLA targets? Options: Yes — route to named roles with SLA, No — exceptions reviewed manually, Route to shared mailbox/team
• How many distinct validation rule sets must run per filing (NAIC standard set, controller custom rules, compliance rules)? Options: 1 — NAIC standard only, 2 — standard + controller rules, 3+ — multiple custom rule sets
• Provide variance tolerance thresholds used to determine pass versus exception for cross-schedule comparisons.
• Which historical filing inconsistency types should be prioritized when compiling validation rules (late adjustments, reinsurance posting lags, GL timing differences)? Options: Late adjustments, Reinsurance posting lags, GL timing differences, Manual journal impacts, Other

Automate Inter-Schedule Reconciliations and Tie-Outs

• Which specific tie-outs do you want automated (Schedule P to statutory reserve lines, Schedule S to investment schedules, GL to filing totals)?
• Are there mandated workpapers or reconciliation templates your auditor or regulator expects to see during an inquiry? Options: Yes — provide templates, No mandated workpapers, Custom templates — will provide
• What frequency do you want reconciliations executed and surfaced to reviewers (daily, weekly, pre-filing run)? Options: Daily, Weekly, Pre-filing only, On-demand
• Do you require automated accrual-to-cash reconciliations between the GL and schedule totals for the filing period? Options: Yes — full accrual-to-cash reconciliation, No — reconcilers will handle manually, Partial — selected accounts
• Who in your team must approve automated reconciliations prior to including results in a filing?

Configure Exception Handling Workflows

• Describe the approval and escalation workflow you use today when a validation exception is raised (roles, thresholds, escalation path).
• Would you like automated notifications to your exception owners via email, ticketing system, or both? Options: Email notifications, Ticketing system integration (Jira/Ticketing), Both email and tickets, Other
• Set SLA targets you require for exception resolution before a filing window closes. Options: 24 hours, 48 hours, 5 business days, Custom — specify
• Do you require that each exception includes documented rationale and supporting evidence inside the audit trail for regulator review? Options: Yes — documented rationale required, No — minimal notes acceptable, Only for material exceptions
• Specify the access controls you want for exception cases (who can view, who can edit, who can close).

Transmit Filings to Regulatory Agencies

• Which submission channels do you require for final delivery to regulators (NAIC Gateway, state portal upload, secure SFTP)? Options: NAIC Gateway, State regulator portal upload, Secure SFTP, API-based submission
• Do you require signed submission receipts and agency confirmation capture to be stored in the audit package as evidence of transmission? Options: Yes — receipts must be captured and archived, No — confirmation not required, Conditional — only for material filings
• Which encryption, credentialing, or certificate standards must be used for agency submissions? Options: TLS mutual auth, SFTP with key exchange, Signed XML/PKI, Other — describe
• Identify the role in your organization authorized to initiate the final agency submission.
• Specify retention period you require for submission artifacts and receipts in the audit repository. Options: 3 years, 7 years, Permanent/indefinite, Custom — specify

Incorporate Regulatory Rule Changes into Filing Logic

• How do you currently receive regulatory change alerts (NAIC bulletin, state circulars, internal legal counsel)? Options: NAIC bulletin subscription, State regulator circulars, Internal legal/compliance feed, Other
• Do you prefer automated rulepack updates from the platform or manual change requests for each regulatory bulletin? Options: Automated rulepack updates, Manual change requests with approval, Hybrid — automated with manual approval
• What maximum turnaround time do you require from regulator bulletin publication to having updated filing logic available for test runs? Options: 1 business day, 3 business days, 5 business days, Custom — specify
• Which internal reviewer group or role must approve regulatory rule changes before they are promoted to production?
• Do you require back-testing of mid-cycle regulatory changes against prior filings to assess downstream impact? Options: Yes — back-test required, No — back-test not required, Conditional — only for material changes

Reconcile and Validate Prior Filings Against Current Logic

• Which prior filing periods and specific forms (prior Schedule P, annual statement, RBC) must be reconciled against current-run outputs?
• List known prior adjustments or restatements that must be accounted for during reconciliation.
• Which data sources were used for the prior filings that you will provide for comparison (archived GL snapshots, prior workpapers, regulator submissions)? Options: Archived GL snapshots, Prior workpapers, Regulator submission files, Other
• Who in your organization will own sign-off for reconciliations against prior filings (role/title)?
• Describe the preferred workflow for documenting and resolving differences discovered when comparing current logic to prior filed amounts.

• Subscription Agreement & Order Form
• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Service Level Agreement (SLA) — Regulatory Update & Availability
• Data Processing Agreement (DPA)
• Regulated Financial Services Addendum (conditional)
• Data Access Authorization & Connector Consent
• Acceptance Test Plan & Filing Accuracy Criteria
• Change Order Agreement

• Go-live Health Check (weeks 1-4)
• First Measurement Review (weeks 4-10)
• Acceptance Gate Decision (around day 90)
• Quarterly Success Review

• Deliver a summary of closed high-severity incidents and remaining open items with next steps.
• Restate acceptance criteria and numeric targets
• Produce a documented pass or fail decision for each numeric acceptance criterion recorded in Solution Scope.
• Capture the named signatory for the acceptance decision where the engagement requires formal sign-off.
• Confirm the incumbent system decommissioning approach and evidence of archive or read-only retention.
• Publish the formal acceptance decision and supporting evidence to the shared workspace.
• If applicable, publish a remediation plan with milestones and a date for re-evaluation of failed criteria.
• Execute legacy data archive or set legacy system to read-only and publish proof of completion.
• Outcome metrics and trend review
• Confirm whether filing accuracy rate and inconsistency counts remain within targets recorded in Solution Scope or require additional remediation.
• Ensure the post-go-live backlog is prioritized with clear delivery windows for rule updates and enhancements.
• Confirm closure or scheduled action for all high-severity post-go-live incidents.
• Publish the prioritized backlog for the next quarter with target delivery windows for each item.
• Provide an updated rule-change log with test plans and expected deployment dates.
• Reconfirm success criteria and owners
• Confirm production connectors and submission endpoints are live and passing basic validation checks.
• Establish an initial list of open production issues with resolution windows.
• Establish a short-term adoption baseline including daily filing submissions and exception counts.
• Provide production error log covering the first 7 days for platform and connector processes.
• Publish the list of open issues with proposed remediation timelines for the next 14 days.
• Capture a baseline report showing daily filing submissions and exception counts for week one.
• Present first data against agreed metrics
• Determine whether the filing accuracy rate is tracking to the interim target recorded in Solution Scope.
• Identify the top three root causes for any post-go-live corrections and document remediation actions.
• Agree a remediation schedule that will prepare the program for the acceptance gate around day 90.
• Deliver a detailed root-cause analysis report for all filings that required correction, including mapping and transformation traces.
• Publish a remediation plan listing mapping rule changes, validation threshold updates, and verification tests with target dates.
• Provide the dataset and sample filings that will be used to validate acceptance criteria at the day 90 gate.
• Deployment and migration validation
• Post-go-live issues and backlog status
• Root-cause diagnosis for any metric gaps
• Present outcome data against each criterion
• Agree corrective actions and timelines
• Document pass or fail per criterion and capture signatory
• Prioritize rule updates and enhancements
• Early adoption signals and usage patterns
• Confirm data and timeline needed for the acceptance gate
• Open issues triage
• Incumbent system wind-down confirmation
• Operational housekeeping and training needs
• Agree remediation plan for any failed criteria
• Agree immediate remediation actions