Quick orientation: who we'll be working with

• Select the lines of business this engagement should cover Options: Personal auto, Commercial auto, Property, Workers' compensation, Short-term disability, Life, Health/Medicare, Multiple lines, Other
• Indicate how frequently you engage external actuarial support for reserving, rate work, or capital analysis Options: Monthly, Quarterly, Annually, Ad hoc (<1/year), Never
• Describe the primary objective you need this engagement to achieve, pick up to two Options: Statement of Actuarial Opinion for financial statements, Quarter-end reserve close support, Rate filing preparation, Capital/ORSA modeling, M&A or transaction support, Litigation or expert testimony, Other
• Identify who in your organization will have final authority to approve scope and sign deliverables Options: Chief Actuary, Appointed Actuary, CFO, Controller, Head of Risk/Compliance, Board Audit Committee, Other
• Provide the earliest milestone date that must be met to fit your financial close or regulatory filing calendar Options: Within 2 weeks, 2-4 weeks, 1-2 months, 2-3 months, No fixed date

Where your numbers actually come from

• If your reserve estimates were audited tomorrow, which data gaps would most likely be challenged?
• Name the core systems that hold the claims, policy, and payment records we would need for analysis Options: Claims system, Policy administration, Accounting/GL, Data warehouse/BI, Third-party adjuster feeds, Manual spreadsheets
• Assess how clean and analysis-ready your paid and incurred triangles are across the key lines of business Options: Ready to run with standard checks, Minor cleanup and formatting needed, Significant cleaning and mapping required, Triangles not maintained
• Confirm who owns the extract process and can provide a data dictionary or lineage for claims and policy files Options: Internal data/ETL team, Actuarial team, IT/BI, Third-party vendor, No clear owner
• Estimate how long it would take to produce claim-level case and payment files for the past five years if requested Options: Under 2 weeks, 2-4 weeks, 1-2 months, More than 2 months, Not available
• Point out the single data deficiency that would prevent us from completing an audit-defensible reserve opinion

What a miss actually costs you

• Imagine a reserve or rate adjustment of 5-10%, how would that affect reported capital, rating agency outlook, or dividend plans
• Select the external reviewers who are most sensitive to reserve volatility in your reporting Options: External auditors, State regulators, Rating agencies, Board audit committee, Reinsurers, Other
• When a prior external actuarial opinion differed materially from your internal view, what downstream actions followed Options: Restatement or adjustment, Board review and discussion, Operational changes in reserving or claims, Regulatory inquiry, No significant action
• Estimate how often audit or regulator questions delay a filing or financial close by more than one reporting period Options: Frequently, Occasionally, Rarely, Never, Unsure
• If an external actuarial opinion required a material modification, would leadership accept the remediation timetable and cost within your reporting deadline Options: Yes, No, Depends on scope, Unsure

Where projects typically get stuck

• Identify the recurring bottleneck in your processes that causes the largest delay or rework in reserve, rate, or capital projects
• Name the team or function that most often creates friction when assumptions or validations are requested Options: Actuarial, Finance/Accounting, Claims, Underwriting, IT/BI, Legal/Compliance
• How long does it typically take to resolve a data or assumption dispute between actuarial and finance Options: Under 1 week, 1-2 weeks, 2-4 weeks, Over a month, Often unresolved
• Has previous consultant work ever failed auditor or regulator scrutiny, and if so, what was the primary issue
• Which operational gap would cause you to postpone or cancel an engagement immediately

The other routes you're considering

• Why would you keep doing this work internally instead of hiring an external actuarial firm
• List the alternatives you have evaluated or currently have in active consideration for this scope Options: Incumbent actuarial firm, Large consultancy, Boutique specialist, Internal team build, Insurtech vendor with models, No alternative evaluated
• State the performance threshold your incumbent or internal approach must meet for you to stay with it Options: Deliver within the target window, Produce audit-defensible outputs, Lower total cost than external, Deeper line-of-business expertise, Clearer communication to auditors/regulators
• Has anyone on your team proposed solving this without an external partner and described how they would fund the required tooling or headcount Options: Yes, with reallocation of existing staff, Yes, hiring new headcount, No internal proposal, Unsure
• Would you prefer speed or documented audit defensibility if a competing vendor promises faster delivery at lower cost but lacks audit precedents Options: Speed, Audit defensibility, Depends on deliverable, Unsure

Data, systems, and integration readiness

• Point to the single integration dependency most likely to blow up your timeline if it is not available
• Which systems will we need API or extract access to for claims, policy, and payment data Options: Claims system, Policy admin system, Accounting/GL, Data warehouse/BI, Third-party adjuster system, Manual spreadsheets
• Are APIs or automated extracts available for those systems, or will data delivery be manual Options: APIs or automated extracts available, Partially automated, Manual extracts required, Unknown
• Who will act as the technical owner responsible for delivering extracts and resolving ETL issues during the engagement Options: Internal data/ETL team, IT/BI, Actuarial operations, Third-party vendor, No owner assigned
• Could you accept analysis based on aggregated triangles if claim-level data cannot be provided within agreed timeframes Options: Yes, for all lines, Yes, only for select lines, No, claim-level required, Depends on auditor requirements

Decision makers and governance

• Who would need to sign off if the actuary's selected reserve caused a capital impact greater than your internal target Options: Chief Actuary, CFO, Controller, Head of Risk/Compliance, Audit Committee, External auditor involvement required
• List the core decision-makers who will participate in acceptance, escalation, or final sign-off Options: Chief Actuary, Appointed Actuary, CFO, Controller, Head of Finance, Audit Committee, External auditor
• Specify the governance or independence confirmations auditors will require from an external actuarial firm Options: Independence letter, Conflict of interest disclosure, Scope and limitation statement, Peer review history, Other
• How does your procurement or legal team typically handle statement of work and engagement agreement timelines Options: Fast-track 1-2 weeks, Standard 2-4 weeks, Long review 1-3 months, Requires executive or board review
• Is there any corporate policy or regulator prohibition that would prevent engaging an external firm for reserve opinions Options: Yes, No, Only under specific conditions, Unsure

Success measures and acceptance gates

• Indicate the single metric or outcome you would point to when you say this engagement delivered value to the company Options: Reduction in reserve variance vs. prior, Timely close without audit comment, Favorable regulator review, Capital preservation or improvement, Faster filing turnaround, Other
• Choose the deliverables that require explicit client sign-off to trigger billing Options: Statement of Actuarial Opinion, Reserve report and reconciliations, Rate filing package, Model code and validation package, Regulatory exhibits and cover letters, Other
• Explain how your auditor or regulator will validate the assumptions and methodology used in our deliverable
• Specify the acceptance criteria you require for sign-off, for example reconciliation to GL within 1-2% Options: Reserve movement tolerance band specified, Reconciliation to GL within 1-2%, Documented model validation, Stakeholder review complete, Other
• Should our first report fail to meet your acceptance criteria, would you expect a remediation timeline that still fits your reporting deadline or would that trigger re-engagement terms Options: Remediate within current timeline, Trigger a scope change and new SOW, Depends on issue severity, Unsure

Time, pilot ideas, and next steps

• Assuming everything aligns, what would accelerate your signature this quarter
• Provide your target decision date to award the engagement Options: Within 1 week, 2-4 weeks, 1-2 months, By quarter-end, No set date
• Pick the deliverable you would want as a pilot to validate capability quickly Options: Triangle reserve run and memo, Sample claim-level stochastic analysis, Rate level indication and exhibit, Capital model snapshot, Audit readiness memo
• Are there hard blackout dates around month-end, quarter-end, or year-end close that would prevent work during specific weeks Options: Month-end close weeks, Quarter-end close weeks, Year-end close, No blackout dates, Other
• Could you sign a fixed-price pilot that meets your acceptance criteria without further delay Options: Yes, Yes with minor contract edits, No, requires additional approvals, Unsure

• Data Inventory and Access Plan
• Modeling Methodology and Key Assumptions Ratification
• Data Quality Triage and Remediation Plan
• Evidence Review and Exception Closure

• Provide the finalized pre-run checklist confirming readiness to start the first model execution.
• A prioritized defect list is agreed with remediation tasks and test criteria for each priority item.
• A contingency plan is set for defects that cannot be remediated before the next modeling milestone.
• Publish the prioritized defect list with remediation steps and test acceptance criteria.
• Deliver corrected test extracts addressing priority defects according to the agreed schedule.
• Present results of automated and manual data validation
• Provide a reconciliation report mapping corrected fields to the original source system fields.
• Review each evidence item against acceptance criteria
• All evidence items are evaluated and either closed or assigned a clear additional evidence requirement.
• A signed pre-run checklist is created that defines the conditions for proceeding to modeling runs.
• Publish the evidence evaluation log showing closed items and the remaining evidence required for open items.
• Deliver any remaining supporting documents or corrected data extracts specified during the session.
• Confirm engagement scope and success criteria
• A finalized data inventory with required fields and schema definitions is agreed.
• An access and delivery plan is set, including test file and final delivery dates.
• Publish the finalized data inventory spreadsheet with schema definitions and sample records.
• Provide a test extract of each dataset in the agreed format within three business days of the meeting.
• Document the secure transfer method and credentials test result for data exchange.
• Recap objectives and constraints
• A assumptions register is produced with accepted, disputed, and evidence-required flags for each assumption.
• Modeling approach per line of business is confirmed and documented for the next analysis step.
• Publish the assumptions register with notation for accepted, disputed, and evidence-required items.
• List the specific evidentiary items and datasets required to substantiate each disputed assumption.
• Produce a short methodological note explaining why each modeling approach was chosen.
• Classify defects by impact and urgency
• Present recommended modeling approach per line
• Present preliminary data inventory
• Resolve or reclassify remaining exceptions
• Agree final pre-run checklist
• Validate required data elements and schemas
• Review and decide on key assumptions
• Agree remediation tasks and test acceptance criteria
• Define evidence requirements and acceptance criteria
• Agree access methods, delivery formats, and deadlines
• Schedule follow-up checkpoint
• Set checkpoints and contingency options

• Prepare Statement of Actuarial Opinion
• Indicated Reserves Using Triangle Methods
• Individual Claim-Level Stochastic Reserve Modeling
• Stochastic Reserve Range and Scenario Analysis
• Reserve Reconciliation to Financial Statements
• Rate Level Indication and Filing Package
• Class Plan Review and Rate Relativity Analysis
• Regulatory Filing Preparation and Submission Support
• ORSA and Economic Capital Modeling Report
• Stress Testing and Capital Adequacy Scenarios
• Claims and Policy Data Cleansing for Modeling
• Actuarial Appraisal for M&A Transactions
• Expert Testimony and Litigation Support

Prepare Statement of Actuarial Opinion

• Provide the target opinion type and reporting standard for the Statement of Actuarial Opinion (for example, NAIC SAO for statutory reporting, IFRS 17 disclosures, or a GAAP actuarial memo) Options: NAIC SAO (U.S. statutory), IFRS 17 disclosure, GAAP actuarial memo, Other
• List the lines of business and accident years the SAO should explicitly cover (for example: Commercial Auto 2015-2024; Workers Compensation 2018-2024)
• Indicate who will supply the key SAO inputs (loss development triangles, claim-level extracts, premium exposure files, actuarial memoranda) Options: You, We, Shared, Third party
• Confirm the acceptance criteria for the SAO deliverable: what auditor, regulator, or board sign-off is required and by what date
• Specify any independence attestations or conflict-of-interest disclosures required for the signing actuary (for regulator, auditor, or appointed actuary purposes) Options: Written attestation required, Standard disclosure sufficient, Discuss exceptions

Indicated Reserves Using Triangle Methods

• Identify which triangle formats you maintain (paid triangles, incurred triangles, case-incurred by accident year or report year) and provide sample files
• Describe the development period and calendarization convention used in your triangles and Schedule P submissions (monthly, quarterly, annual) Options: Monthly, Quarterly, Annual, Mixed/Other
• When do you require the triangle-method reserve indication relative to your financial close cycle (for example, within 5 business days after close)? Options: Before close, Within 5 business days, Within 10 business days, Custom
• Select the confidence level(s) or percentiles you want reported for triangle indications (for example, best estimate, 75th percentile, 90th percentile) Options: Best estimate (mean/median), 75th percentile, 90th percentile, Custom
• Specify exclusions, bulk IBNR treatment, or large-loss pools to be handled separately with reference to Schedule P line items

Individual Claim-Level Stochastic Reserve Modeling

• Choose which lines of business and claim types require claim-level stochastic modeling (for example, long-tail general liability, complex bodily injury, life disability)
• Attach a sample claim-level extract schema or list required fields (claim_id, report_date, payment_date, case_reserve, claim_status, indemnity_amount, expense_amount)
• State the minimum historical window and closed-claim history you expect for calibration (for example, 10 years of closed claims or all claims since 2012) Options: 5 years, 7 years, 10 years, Custom
• Include any contract or reinsurance features that materially change claim development (for example, excess attachment points, reinstatement provisions, aggregated stop-loss) and provide examples
• Upload or describe run-time and computational constraints for stochastic runs (for example, maximum iterations, maximum runtime in hours, use of your compute cluster) Options: Standard unconstrained compute, Limit to specified hours (please specify), Use buyer compute cluster, Request cost estimate

Stochastic Reserve Range and Scenario Analysis

• Report the scenario types and magnitudes you want included in range analysis (for example, development factor shocks, claim severity inflation 10-30%, tail deterioration scenarios)
• Supply the economic or inflation assumptions you want tested (for example, CPI series, claim-severity inflation by line) or indicate if we should source industry indices Options: You will supply series, We should source industry indices, Shared approach
• Assign which percentiles or distributional metrics you require from stochastic output (for example, P50 range, P90, conditional tail expectation) Options: P50, P75, P90, Custom
• Approve whether narrative explanations for each stress scenario are required for regulator or board review Options: Yes, No
• Explain any constraints tied to reinsurance recoverables or collateral arrangements that should be reflected in net reserve ranges

Reserve Reconciliation to Financial Statements

• Outline the mapping between actuarial reserve outputs and your general ledger accounts (GL codes) and financial statement line items
• Name the internal control documents or reconciliation schedules currently used (for example, monthly reserve roll-forward, audit trail spreadsheets) Options: Monthly reconciliation, Quarterly reconciliation, No formal reconciliation, Other
• Detail the roll-forward or disclosure format required for auditors (for example, schedule showing opening reserves, paid, incurred, reestimates, and closing reserves)
• Quantify the acceptance thresholds for reconciliation differences that would trigger adjustment or disclosure (for example, $ or percentage materiality thresholds)
• Identify the roles involved in reconciliation reviews and approval (for example, appointed actuary, finance lead, audit lead) and provide expected sign-off timelines Options: You, We, Shared, Third party

Rate Level Indication and Filing Package

• Explain the rate-level indication methods and exhibits you expect in the filing package (for example, loss cost multiplier, pure premium, rate-change exhibits) and cite form references Options: Loss cost multiplier, Pure premium, Schedule of rates, Other
• Describe the experience period, trending, and credibility splits to use for rate indications (for example, 3-year experience trended to midpoint with 50% credibility)
• Select the target filing formats and jurisdictions for the rate filing (for example, SERFF package, state form exhibits, actuarial memo) and list states
• Include any external constraints that should limit indicated increases (for example, state-imposed caps, market rate bands)
• Supply the exposure and loss cost datasets and confirm whether policy-level exposure, audited premiums, or premium audits are available for rating analysis Options: Policy-level exposure available, Only aggregated exposure, Premium audit files available, Other

Class Plan Review and Rate Relativity Analysis

• Provide a copy of class definitions, territory codes, and a sample class plan mapping used in your ratebook
• Confirm whether current rating relativities and algorithms are documented and attach the last approved relativity table Options: Documented and provided, Documentation exists but not provided, Not documented
• Detail any planned product or class changes (for example, endorsements, split of coverages) that will affect relativity analysis
• Choose preferred statistical approaches for relativity testing (for example, generalized linear model with exposure offsets, constrained least squares, credibility-weighted blend) Options: GLM with offsets, Constrained least squares, Credibility blend, Other
• Report any regulatory or internal class-specific caps or bands that must be respected when recommending relativity changes

Regulatory Filing Preparation and Submission Support

• List the target states and filing jurisdictions and indicate any jurisdiction-specific deadlines or filing windows
• Indicate the filing components required by jurisdiction (for example, actuarial memo, supporting exhibits, SERFF attachments) and flag any special forms
• Attach whether you want draft regulator responses prepared and indicate who will own submission tracking and communications Options: We prepare draft responses, You prepare draft responses, Shared ownership, Third party
• Validate the acceptance criteria for filings: what regulator acknowledgment or approval stage constitutes completion for this engagement (for example, SERFF acknowledgement, effective date, formal approval letter)
• Upload prior filing correspondence or regulator objections on similar lines to inform rebuttal narratives

ORSA and Economic Capital Modeling Report

• Name the ORSA time horizon, risk categories, and scenario scope required by your regulator or board (for example, 1-year solvency projection and 3-year strategic view)
• State the internal capital model inputs available (loss distributions, premium projections, reinsurance treaties, investment return assumptions) and any known data gaps
• Pick the capital metrics required for the ORSA deliverable (for example, economic capital at 1-in-200, VaR99.5, Solvency II SCR equivalence) Options: Economic capital 1-in-200, VaR99.5, Solvency II SCR, Custom
• Assign which governance documents should be bundled in the ORSA pack (risk appetite statement, model validation reports, recent board minutes)
• Who will provide portfolio projections, expense budgets, and reinsurance cashflows required for stress testing in the ORSA model Options: You, We, Shared, Third party

Stress Testing and Capital Adequacy Scenarios

• Pick the stress scenarios to include (for example, pandemic shock, reserve strengthening across long-tail lines, interest rate shock) and indicate intended severities
• Outline how stress scenarios tie to regulatory capital triggers or internal escalation thresholds (for example, breach of internal capital buffer triggers board escalation)
• Do you have macroeconomic scenario files (GDP, CPI, yield curves) to supply, or should we source market data for scenario inputs Options: You will supply files, We will source market data, Shared approach
• Set the notification and escalation rules if stress testing shows capital insufficiency (who should be alerted and within what timeframe) Options: Immediate executive alert, Daily monitoring report, Monthly only, Custom
• Deliver the expected stress-testing outputs you require (for example, executive dashboard, PowerPoint summary, full model workbook) and preferred file formats Options: PowerPoint executive summary, Full model workbook (Excel), Dashboard (web), Other

Claims and Policy Data Cleansing for Modeling

• Highlight common data issues to address for modeling (for example, missing report_date values, duplicated claim_id, inconsistent policy effective/expiration dates) and provide sample error counts
• Quantify acceptable data quality thresholds that define remediation needs (for example, percent missing report_date, percent of claims with unknown reserve)
• Clarify the authoritative sources for policy and claims (policy master file, claims register, billing system) and confirm the preferred access method Options: Database extract, Flat files (CSV), API, Other
• Approve whether cleansing should be deterministic only or should include statistical imputation for missing fields used in stochastic models Options: Deterministic cleansing only, Include statistical imputation, Need discussion
• Deliver the cleansing outputs you require (for example, clean extracts, data dictionary, reconciliation report) and an expected delivery schedule

Actuarial Appraisal for M&A Transactions

• Declare the transaction type and timeline (for example, sell-side valuation, buy-side diligence, SPA timeline) and the target close date
• Enumerate the valuation outputs required (for example, present value of in-force, indemnity tail reserve estimate, embedded value) and the desired level of granularity
• Clarify confidentiality and access constraints for diligence (for example, virtual data room access, pseudonymized extracts) and the expected NDA turnaround Options: VDR access, Pseudonymized extracts, Full access, Other
• Discuss whether pro forma adjustments are required for reinsurance, portfolio transfers, or loss portfolio transfers and provide examples
• Set the expected deliverable cadence for appraisal work (for example, initial indicative memo, draft valuation, final certified appraisal) and turnaround expectations

• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Commercial Terms & Order Form
• Independence and Conflict of Interest Confirmation
• Deliverable Schedule and Acceptance Certificate
• Audit & Regulatory Governance Addendum
• Data Processing and Security Addendum (conditional)

• Receive written acceptance for Final Actuarial Report
• Receive signed Statement of Actuarial Opinion (SAO) acceptance
• Obtain signed acceptance of Model and Assumptions package
• Confirm regulatory filing submission and acknowledgement
• Secure documented independence and conflict-of-interest confirmation
• Confirm transfer of final deliverables to agreed secure repository
• Obtain auditor acceptance where required by scope
• Issue final engagement invoice triggered by acceptance
• Record formal engagement closure in project governance system
• Agree post-delivery support and regulatory escalation plan

• Go-live Health Check
• First Measurement Review
• Regulatory and Audit Support Quarterly Review
• Operational Issue Burn-down
• Annual Governance and Regulatory Preparedness Review

• Publish a prioritized list of control enhancements to be implemented before the next major filing window.
• Summary of recent regulatory interactions
• All open audit questions are assigned closure actions or documented on a tracked escalation path.
• Evidence traceability is validated and any documentation gaps are scheduled for completion before the next filing.
• Deliver a closed-item register for audit questions showing resolution status and supporting evidence links.
• Update the model control remediation log with root causes and verification steps completed.
• Review open ticket queue
• Reduce the specific open governance issue count by a defined amount before the next burn-down meeting.
• Assign closure dates to all tickets prioritized for the next operational window.
• Publish the prioritized burn-down list with target closure dates and required evidence for each item.
• Record a decision on each enhancement request indicating immediate action, deferred, or roadmap placement.
• Year-to-date metric summary
• Confirm that annual governance and control improvements reduced recurring audit findings to the agreed level or document further actions if not.
• Agree the evidence calendar and support plan for the next regulatory cycle.
• Produce the annual governance report summarizing improvements, outstanding risks, and the evidence calendar for the next 12 months.
• Reconfirm scope, acceptance criteria, and owners
• All ongoing owners for regulatory, audit, and governance responsibilities are confirmed and recorded in Engagement Scope.
• Critical access or evidence blockers are assigned remediation tasks with target dates.
• Publish an updated owner and escalation matrix reflecting confirmed roles and contact points.
• Deliver a short remediation plan for all high-priority blockers with target completion dates.
• Produce a remediation tracker listing each corrective action, expected result, and target completion date.
• Present first-period outcome data
• Identify the root causes for any metric shortfalls and document corrective actions with resolution timelines.
• Agree the evidence package and reporting cadence for the next quarterly regulatory review.
• Publish the dataset and examples used to calculate regulatory query resolution time for auditability.
• Validate deployment and access
• Prioritize and schedule burn-down tasks
• Metric review
• Root cause diagnosis for any gaps
• Controls and process improvements review
• Regulatory change implications
• Enhancement request triage
• Agree corrective actions and timelines
• Early support signals
• Evidence and model control audit
• Open blockers and immediate remediation
• Close or escalate open audit questions
• Confirm readiness for next quarterly review
• Short blockers review
• Annual support plan and evidence calendar