Getting to Know Your Filing Rhythm

• How frequently does your organization file rate changes across all jurisdictions? Options: Monthly, Quarterly, Biannual, Annual, Ad hoc
• Describe your current filing inventory by count and stage, for example how many are in preparation, submitted, under review, and pending approval.
• Tell us which lines of business generate the most filings for your team right now. Options: Personal auto, Homeowners, Commercial lines, Workers compensation, Other
• On average, how many active filings does a single actuarial or regulatory lead manage at once? Options: 1-5, 6-10, 11-20, 21-50, 50+
• In your last annual cycle, which state types (high-population, small market, territory) regularly required the most rework? Options: High-population states, Mid-sized states, Small states and territories, No consistent pattern
• Who signs the final filing package for each jurisdiction on your side, and does that role vary by state or line of business? Options: Chief actuary, Head of regulatory affairs, VP product, State filing lead, Varies by state

When Approvals Slip, What Breaks?

• If approval timelines extended by an additional four to eight weeks, what immediate business outcome would you miss or have to postpone?
• Estimate the revenue or loss exposure you associate with a single flagship rate filing being delayed by one quarter. Options: <$100k, $100k-$500k, $500k-$1M, $1M-$5M, >$5M
• Where do delays translate into the largest operational cost for your team, for example rework time, examiner negotiation, or implementation freezes? Options: Actuarial rework, Regulatory back-and-forth, IT implementation delays, Product launch hold, Other
• Which stakeholder group inside your company feels the operational pain first when a filing stalls, and how do they react? Options: Actuarial team, Regulatory affairs, Product leadership, Sales/Distribution, Finance
• When an objection arrives from a state examiner, what is the typical turnaround time for your team to provide a substantive response? Options: Within 3 business days, Within 1 week, 1-2 weeks, More than 2 weeks
• What single downstream consequence of approval delays would make you halt a multi-state filing program immediately?

Where Review Time Is Lost

• Walk me through the last filing that generated significant DOI back-and-forth, what was the root cause that surprised you?
• List the three most common reasons reviewers request revisions in your filings, for example missing actuarial support, format issues, or jurisdictional narrative gaps.
• Name the parts of your filing package that consume the most internal effort to prepare and update. Options: Actuarial exhibits, Regulatory narrative, Supporting data extracts, SERFF formatting, Electronic submission packaging
• In a typical objection cycle, which internal approvals or handoffs add the most days to your response time? Options: Actuarial peer review, Legal review, Executive signoff, Data team extraction, No single bottleneck
• Where do you see the most variability in examiner expectations across states, and how do you currently decide when to tailor versus keep a standardized approach?
• Which one recurring review problem, if solved, would reduce your average filing cycle by half?

The Hard Requirements That Could Stop This

• Identify the critical technical or access dependencies we must have in place to submit filings on your behalf, for example portal credentials, APIs, or secure file transfer methods.
• How mature is your filing data, meaning can you produce clean loss and exposure extracts for a state within 2 business days when asked? Options: Yes, consistently, Usually within a week, Often needs cleaning and takes weeks, No, this is a blocker
• Which internal team owns the integrations and portals we would need to access, and do they have available capacity to support setup in the next 60 days? Options: IT/Integrations, Regulatory operations, Actuarial data team, Third-party vendor, Not assigned
• Do any regulatory, legal, or compliance approvals need to be obtained before a third party can submit filings on your behalf? Options: Yes, legal signoff required, Yes, regulator notification required, No formal approvals required, Unsure
• If access, data readiness, and integration support were all missing today, how long would it realistically take your organization to reach launch readiness? Options: <2 weeks, 2-6 weeks, 6-12 weeks, >12 weeks
• Which single missing operational item would immediately prevent us from starting work on a pilot program?

The Competitive Landscape You're Navigating

• Who are the main alternatives you are evaluating right now, including doing this work internally? Options: Incumbent consultant, Internal team build, New external vendor, Platform automation, Other
• Why would you stay with your current approach instead of moving to an external program-managed model, for example cost, control, or historical performance?
• Which criteria matter most when you rank providers, for example time to approval, jurisdiction expertise, or total cost? Options: Time to approval, Jurisdiction-specific expertise, Total cost, Data security and compliance, Dashboard and reporting
• Has anyone on your team proposed solving multi-state filings by expanding internal headcount instead of working with a partner, and what was the conclusion? Options: Yes, and we hired, Yes, but we rejected it, No internal proposal, Still under discussion
• What would have to be provably true about your current incumbent or internal approach for you to choose to stay with it for the next 12 months?
• Which single competitive gap, if closed by a vendor, would make you switch before year end?

Clear Criteria for Moving Forward

• Which single metric or outcome would make you consider this engagement a clear success, for example approvals within target windows or reduction in examiner rework? Options: Approvals within target window, Reduced objection rate, Faster total cycle time, Lower internal FTE hours, Predictable approval timelines
• Rate how important immediate time savings is versus building a repeatable, documented filing playbook for future cycles. Options: Time savings is far more important, Both equally important, Playbook is more important, Unsure
• Who on your executive team must be satisfied with pilot results before you scale to multiple states? Options: Chief actuary, Head of regulatory affairs, VP product, CFO, Other
• Assuming a successful pilot, what legal or commercial approval would be required to sign a multi-state program agreement within 30 days? Options: Standard PO, Contract signature by procurement, Executive committee approval, Budget allocation only, Other
• Which single unresolved risk would stop you from approving a pilot today?

Next Steps and Practical Commitments

• If a pilot proves the expected reduction in cycle time, who has the authority on your side to approve a scaled program within two weeks? Options: Chief actuary, Head of regulatory affairs, VP product, Procurement, Other
• Select the practical items you can make available in the next 30 days to start a pilot, for example portal credentials, a sample SERFF package, or a data extract. Options: Portal credentials, Sample SERFF package, Actuarial data extract, Named state contacts, Legal terms template
• Provide the earliest realistic date your team could commit to kick off an initial pilot filing. Options: Immediately, Within 2 weeks, 2-6 weeks, More than 6 weeks
• Can you identify a short list of three states you would prioritize for a pilot and why those states?
• What is the single decision that would accelerate your timeline to sign a pilot agreement this quarter?

• Working Sessions Kickoff and Assumptions Alignment
• Actuarial Inputs Working Session
• Regulatory Preferences and Evidence Mapping
• Jurisdiction Evidence Workshop (repeat per jurisdiction)
• Consolidated Working Sessions Review and Go/No-Go Decision

• Collect and upload all missing documents listed in the jurisdiction checklist.
• Update the evidence mapping with any new jurisdiction-specific rules discovered after the session.
• Confirm jurisdiction filing scope and required documents
• Completed filing checklist and evidence bundle status for the jurisdiction.
• Owners and deadlines assigned for all missing evidence items.
• Readiness decision recorded for the jurisdiction, move to configuration only when ready.
• Confirm engagement scope and success criteria
• Provide jurisdiction-specific actuarial assumptions and supporting calculation files referenced in the checklist.
• Update the central tracker with evidence delivery dates and readiness status for the jurisdiction.
• Present consolidated artifacts package
• Formal go/no-go decision recorded for advancing to the next stage.
• Consolidated list of outstanding items with owners, deadlines, and mitigation steps.
• Transition plan agreed, including first deliverables and kickoff date for the next stage.
• Publish the consolidated artifacts package and the decision record to the shared workspace.
• Populate the tracker with all outstanding remedial actions, owners, and target completion dates.
• Schedule the Engagement Scope kickoff or a remediation follow-up session based on the decision.
• Master input list published with required items, current availability, and deadlines.
• Per-jurisdiction workshop schedule agreed and prioritized by deadline risk.
• Assumptions and success criteria confirmed and recorded for the working sessions.
• Publish the master input list and workshop schedule to the shared workspace.
• Provide current sample datasets and any prior regulator correspondence available for initial review.
• Confirm named contacts and their contact method for each jurisdiction.
• Recap required actuarial outputs
• Final actuarial data schema and required file formats approved.
• Data sample validation results logged with issues to remediate before evidence assembly.
• Delivery schedule and acceptance criteria for actuarial data committed for the working sessions.
• Provide full sample extracts that match the agreed schema for complete validation.
• Document and submit definitions for any nonstandard or custom data fields referenced in extracts.
• Populate the tracker with data delivery dates and expected record counts for each refresh.
• Introduce the regulator preference template
• Completed regulatory preference matrix for all prioritized jurisdictions.
• List of jurisdiction-specific evidence gaps that require follow-up in per-jurisdiction workshops.
• Prioritized list of jurisdictions for deeper evidence workshops.
• Deliver any existing examiner feedback, prior approval letters, or regulator guidance documents for jurisdictions listed.
• Provide examples of previously accepted filings or narratives for jurisdictions where available.
• Confirm jurisdictions and prioritization
• Review each evidence item and availability
• Review outstanding gaps and timeline impact
• Map evidence requirements across jurisdictions
• Define the data schema and file formats
• Build the jurisdiction filing checklist with owners
• Identify common objections and mitigations
• Decision on proceed to Engagement Scope
• Build the master input list
• Validate sample extracts
• Agree workshop cadence and ownership
• Agree next steps and transition plan
• Agree update cadence and acceptance criteria
• Prioritize jurisdictions for targeted follow-up
• Sign off readiness status or capture remediation actions

• Prepare Actuarial Indication Package
• Assemble Regulatory E‑Filing Package
• Draft State‑Specific Regulatory Narrative
• Compile Supporting Actuarial Documentation
• Submit Filings to State Departments of Insurance
• Respond to DOI Objections and Information Requests
• Provide Centralized Filing Status Dashboard
• Track Examiner Activity and Approval Timelines
• Coordinate with Carrier Actuarial and Product Teams
• Perform Competitive Rate and Market Analysis
• Verify Post‑Approval Rate Implementation
• Monitor Ongoing Compliance and Renewal Filings
• Prepare Multi‑State Filing Bundles and Consistency Checks
• Apply Credibility, Trend, and Loss Development Calculations

Prepare Actuarial Indication Package

• Which lines of business should the actuarial indication cover (for example private passenger auto, homeowners, commercial property, workers compensation)? Options: Private passenger auto, Homeowners, Commercial property, Workers compensation, Other
• What historical period should we use for loss triangles and exposure (for example 3 years, 5 years, 10 years)? Options: 3 years, 5 years, 7 years, 10+ years, Other
• Do you require segmentation of the indication by rating territory, class code, or policy form? Options: By rating territory, By class code, By policy form, Aggregate only, Undecided
• Who on your team will provide loss run extracts, policy counts, and exposure files and in which file formats (for example CSV, Excel, database export)?
• When is the target effective date for the rates and are there any seasonal or regulatory timing constraints for that effective date? Options: Fixed effective date, Flexible within quarter, Must align with prior approval date, Other
• List any known regulatory limits or statutory caps in target states that should constrain the actuarial indication (for example statutory maximum rate change percentages, moratoria).

Assemble Regulatory E‑Filing Package

• Which states will require electronic submissions through their portal versus SERFF XML or manual upload? Options: Single state filing, Multi-state (2-10), Large multi-state (11+)
• What SERFF filing components do you expect to include (for example rate pages, actuarial memorandum, policy forms, rate tables)? Options: Rate pages, Actuarial memorandum, Policy forms, Rate tables, Other
• Describe any state-specific electronic format requirements we must meet (for example XML schema variants, spreadsheet templates, file naming conventions).
• How will you provide signature authority or certification for filings that require an actuarial sign-off or authorized signer in the portal? Options: Digital certificate provided, We will sign in portal, We provide scanned signature, Undecided
• Are there internal compliance checks or pre-submission approvals we must pass before assembling the e-filing package (for example legal review, internal actuarial review)? Options: Legal review required, Internal actuarial review required, Underwriting sign-off required, No additional checks
• Please specify any filing fee payment method constraints or billing contacts for state portal fees.

Draft State‑Specific Regulatory Narrative

• Which states require tailored regulatory narrative versus a standardized national narrative? Options: State-specific narrative required, Standard narrative acceptable, Mix of both
• What competitive or jurisdictional factors should be referenced in the narrative (for example recent DOI orders, prior approval precedents, state-specific rating factors)?
• Do you want the narrative to include sample examiner Q&A anticipating likely DOI objections for each jurisdiction? Options: Include sample Q&A, No Q&A, Include only for high-risk states
• Who will provide historical filing decisions or prior approval letters that should be cited in the narrative for specific states?
• Provide any corporate messaging constraints or customer-facing language that must be avoided or included in the regulatory narrative.
• Identify the preferred depth of actuarial explanation in the narrative per state (for example high-level summary, detailed methodology, full equation-level disclosure). Options: High-level summary, Detailed methodology, Full equation-level disclosure, Undecided

Compile Supporting Actuarial Documentation

• What specific supporting exhibits do you expect to include (for example loss development factors, trend analyses, credibility calculations, experience period selection justification)? Options: Loss development factors, Trend analyses, Credibility calculations, Experience selection justification, Other
• How granular should supporting documentation be by territory or class code (for example statewide, territory-level, class-level)? Options: Statewide, Territory-level, Class-level, Both territory and class
• Do you require peer or market benchmark exhibits to support the actuarial conclusions for each state? Options: Yes, include peer benchmarks, No, internal data only, Include only for select states
• Which file formats for actuarial exhibits do you prefer (for example spreadsheet with live formulas, PDF snapshots, CSV exports)? Options: Spreadsheet with formulas, PDF snapshots, CSV exports, Other
• Who will own final approval of the actuarial memorandum and sign-off checklist within your organization?
• List any third-party actuarial models or vendors whose output must be incorporated or reconciled in the supporting documentation.

Submit Filings to State Departments of Insurance

• Which states will require direct portal submission by your team versus submission we handle on your behalf? Options: We submit directly, You submit on our behalf, Hybrid per state
• What is your preferred submission cadence (for example single-batch by effective date, staggered by state readiness, rolling monthly submissions)? Options: Single-batch, Staggered by state, Rolling monthly, Other
• How will payment of filing fees be handled for each state (for example our account, your account, billed centrally)? Options: We pay filing fees, You pay and bill us, State billed to carrier
• Provide the expected owner for portal credentials and any existing SERFF filing IDs to link new submissions to prior filings.
• What evidence will validate successful submission to each state portal (for example portal receipt number, SERFF tracking ID, confirmation email)? Options: Portal receipt number, SERFF tracking ID, Confirmation email/screenshot, Other
• Are there any state-specific pre-submission checks you want automated (for example required field validation, file size checks)? Options: Yes, validate required fields, Yes, validate file sizes, No automation required

Respond to DOI Objections and Information Requests

• What SLA should apply to initial DOI objection responses (for example 3 business days, 7 business days)? Options: 3 business days, 5 business days, 7 business days, Custom
• Which internal reviewers must approve substantive responses to examiner requests (for example chief actuary, head of regulatory affairs)?
• Do you want pre-drafted template responses for common DOI questions tailored by line and state? Options: Yes, include templates, No, bespoke responses only, Templates for high-volume states only
• How will examiner correspondence be routed to your team (for example direct portal notification, integration with your ticketing system, email distribution list)? Options: Portal notification, Email distribution list, Integration with ticketing system, Other
• Describe any internal approval gating that would lengthen response time (for example legal sign-off required before actuarial edits are submitted).
• Are there thresholds where you require a revised actuarial indication rather than an explanatory response (for example requested rate reduction > X%)? Options: Yes, specify threshold, No threshold, always respond, Decide case-by-case

Provide Centralized Filing Status Dashboard

• Which key metrics must appear on the centralized dashboard (for example number of open filings by state, average days in reviewer queue, pending examiner requests)? Options: Open filings by state, Average review days, Pending examiner requests, Projected approval dates, Other
• What level of access controls do you need on the dashboard (for example view-only for underwriting, edit for actuarial, admin for regulatory leads)? Options: View-only, Edit for actuarial, Admin for regulatory leads, Custom roles
• Which systems should the dashboard integrate with for live status updates (for example your policy administration system, your ticketing system, SERFF API)? Options: Policy administration system, Ticketing system, SERFF API, Other
• What reporting cadence and export formats do you require from the dashboard (for example weekly PDF snapshot, CSV export daily)? Options: Daily CSV export, Weekly PDF snapshot, Ad-hoc exports, Other
• What acceptance criteria will confirm the dashboard meets your needs (for example 95% data freshness within one hour, correct mapping of SERFF IDs to internal filing IDs)?
• Do you require role-based notifications from the dashboard for specific events (for example examiner request received, filing approved)? Options: Yes, notifications required, No notifications, Notifications for critical events only

Track Examiner Activity and Approval Timelines

• How granular should tracking of examiner activity be (for example per filing, per examiner contact, per question thread)? Options: Per filing, Per examiner contact, Per question thread, All levels
• Which timeline projections are required (for example expected days to first response, expected total review time, probability-weighted approval date)? Options: Days to first response, Total review time, Probability-weighted approval date, Other
• Who should be notified when an examiner posts a new objection or information request and by what channel? Options: Email, Dashboard alert, Ticketing system, Other
• Are you tracking examiner responsiveness benchmarks you want us to measure (for example average response time by examiner, percent of examiner questions resolved within SLA)? Options: Yes, track benchmarks, No benchmarks required, Track only for select states
• Provide any historical examiner behavior data or prior correspondence that should be used to calibrate timeline projections.
• Do you want escalation rules when an examiner request has not been answered within the agreed SLA (for example escalate to head of regulatory after X days)? Options: Yes, escalate after set days, No escalation rules, Escalate case-by-case

Coordinate with Carrier Actuarial and Product Teams

• Who are the primary contacts in your actuarial and product teams including roles and preferred contact methods?
• What internal review gates and approval sign-offs are required before we finalize filings (for example product committee approval, pricing governance board)? Options: Product committee, Pricing governance board, Chief actuary sign-off, None
• How do you prefer we coordinate changes with product teams when a filing triggers form or coverage changes (for example regular sync calls, change tickets, shared change log)? Options: Regular sync calls, Change tickets, Shared change log, Other
• Do you require reconciliation of proposed rate impacts to internal P&L or actuarial profitability models before submission? Options: Yes, reconciliation required, No reconciliation, Reconciliation for material changes only
• What turnaround time do you expect from your internal teams on review requests we raise (for example 48 hours, 5 business days)? Options: 48 hours, 3 business days, 5 business days, Custom
• List any mandatory stakeholders who must be included in weekly status updates or approval emails.

Perform Competitive Rate and Market Analysis

• Which competitor sets should be included in the market analysis for each state (for example direct competitors, top 5 market share carriers)? Options: Top 5 by market share, Direct competitors only, Custom list provided by you
• What external data sources are acceptable for benchmarking (for example rate filings public data, industry rate comp services, state rate exam filings)? Options: Public state filings, Industry rate comp services, State rate exam reports, Other
• Do you want competitor rate grids and average rate levels included as exhibits in each state filing package? Options: Include competitor grids, Exclude competitor grids, Include only for select states
• How should market analysis influence recommended rate actions (for example cap at median competitor change, match top quartile improvement)? Options: Cap at median competitor, Match top quartile, Use as qualitative support only
• Provide any pricing sensitivities or business rules that must be respected when performing competitive comparisons (for example minimum earned premium thresholds, product carve-outs).
• Would you like visualizations of market position by territory and class included in the filing exhibits? Options: Yes, include visualizations, No visualizations, Include for select territories only

• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Commercial Terms Schedule
• Order Form / Engagement Confirmation
• Data Access & Integration Agreement
• Authorization to Act as Filing Agent
• Roles & Responsibilities Matrix (RACI)
• Governance & Escalation Plan
• Data Processing Agreement (DPA)
• Regulatory Compliance Addendum
• Change Order Agreement
• Acceptance Criteria & Closeout Certificate
• Confidentiality Agreement (NDA)

• Go-live Health Check
• First Measurement Review
• Acceptance Gate, Program Acceptance Review
• Quarterly Program Success Review
• Annual Lessons Learned and Continuous Improvement

• Update the enhancement backlog with priorities and target delivery windows.
• Capture the buyer signatory acceptance decision and file the acceptance evidence package.
• Agree remediation actions, owners, and hard deadlines for any failed or conditional criteria.
• Publish the formal acceptance decision and attach the evidence package to program records.
• Create a remediation tracker for any failed criteria with explicit owners and completion dates.
• Schedule follow-up validation to confirm remediation items are closed before final acceptance is recorded, if required.
• Quarterly outcomes vs Engagement Scope targets
• Confirm whether the program is maintaining percent of filings approved within target timeframe and average DOI objection turnaround time against Engagement Scope targets.
• Agree a prioritized enhancement backlog and delivery windows for the next quarter.
• Ensure all high-severity open issues have documented owners and remediation deadlines.
• Re-confirm success criteria and owners
• Create or update remediation plans for any jurisdictions missing approval targets with clear deadlines.
• Publish the quarterly outcomes summary and distribute to stakeholder distribution list.
• Annual metrics and trend analysis
• Document and agree the key lessons learned and their root causes for use in the program playbook.
• Agree a prioritized set of improvements with target timelines to reduce approval lead time and DOI objections.
• Ensure the annual metrics and improvement commitments are recorded against the Engagement Scope targets for next-year monitoring.
• Publish the annual lessons learned report and updated program playbook changes.
• Schedule and document the implementation plan for the top three prioritized improvements with target completion dates.
• Plan a training session or template rollout to address identified common objection causes within the next quarter.
• Confirm the deployment completed against the checklist in Engagement Scope and that named owners are correct.
• Produce a documented list of current blockers with remediation actions and target completion dates.
• Verify that early submission processes are functioning and that no systemic portal or template failures exist.
• Publish the post-launch verification checklist and status of each item.
• Log all blockers in the program issue tracker with remediation actions and target dates.
• Schedule a focused follow-up for any unresolved high-severity deployment defects within 7 calendar days.
• Present first 30–60 day metrics versus Engagement Scope targets
• Determine whether average filing approval lead time and percent of filings receiving DOI objections are tracking to targets in Engagement Scope.
• Agree a prioritized corrective action plan with completion dates to address the top 3 drivers of metric shortfall.
• Confirm the Acceptance Gate date and the evidence package required for the decision.
• Produce a jurisdiction-level root-cause analysis for the top 5 delayed filings.
• Update the filing templates or regulatory narratives identified as primary drivers of DOI objections.
• Publish a remediation plan with explicit completion dates to meet targets recorded in Engagement Scope.
• Restate acceptance criteria and evidence required
• Produce a documented pass/fail result for each numeric acceptance criterion recorded in Engagement Scope.
• Deployment and submission verification
• Root-cause analysis for gaps
• Lessons learned and root causes
• Present outcome data against each acceptance criterion
• Open issues and exception review
• Document pass or fail per criterion
• Process, template, and governance improvements
• Review active DOI objection cases and remediation progress
• Enhancement request backlog prioritization
• Early adoption and operational signals
• Formal acceptance decision and buyer signatory capture
• Blockers and open issues triage
• Prioritize improvements and schedule implementation
• Agree corrective actions, owners, and dates
• Cross-jurisdiction consistency and template improvement
• Agree remediation plan for failed or conditional criteria
• Agree immediate remediation actions
• Confirm action items and next quarter focus
• Confirm readiness timeline to the Acceptance Gate