REINSURANCE · DESK / PROTODESKRDM-03

CRO / ENTERPRISE RISK

RDM-03 can cross classes, portfolios and functions without a natural owner. The enterprise-risk question is therefore not only how severe it might be, but whether it creates an unowned common dependency and which decision should be escalated.

OBSERVEDLarge-load / disconnection events

MODELLEDWider system propagation

INFERREDCross-exposure correlation

UNPROVENInsured consequence

RDM-03 / DESK ANATOMY

GUARD & CREATE

EACH ROW SHOWS A SEPARATE DECISION PATHWAY THROUGH RDM-03: WHAT THIS DESK MAY NEED TO GUARD FROM THE DEPENDENCY, 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 OWNERSHIP	The dependency may sit between underwriting, exposure, modelling, engineering and operations.	Naming the dependency can create a clearer enterprise owner or escalation route.	Who owns RDM-03 if no existing risk category contains the whole mechanism?
02	RISK TAXONOMY	RDM-03 may not fit cleanly inside cyber, property, operational or catastrophe categories.	A dependency view can complement taxonomy without forcing premature reclassification.	Where should RDM-03 sit in the enterprise risk view if it survives?
03	CROSS-CLASS EXPOSURE	Several classes may inherit the same external system dependency while being managed separately.	A cross-class view could reveal common exposure that no single class sees alone.	Where could RDM-03 connect classes currently governed independently?
04	RISK APPETITE	Risk appetite may be expressed by class or peril rather than by dependency concentration.	A dependency-level boundary could inform appetite without replacing existing limits.	Would RDM-03 require a new appetite question or only a reinterpretation of existing ones?
05	SCENARIO ESCALATION	A modelled system event may not reach the threshold for enterprise scenario review.	A bounded trigger could define when RDM-03 deserves escalation and when it does not.	What evidence threshold should move RDM-03 into enterprise scenario testing?
06	CAPITAL IMPLICATION	Hidden correlation could alter enterprise views of concentration and diversification.	A tested dependency could sharpen capital discussion while still allowing NULL if immaterial.	Where could RDM-03 change the enterprise view of diversification or concentration?
07	GOVERNANCE	No standing committee may own a dependency that cuts across traditional risk silos.	A named decision pathway can prevent the issue becoming everyone's concern and nobody's decision.	Which governance body should act if RDM-03 survives initial testing?
08	KILL / CONTINUE	Emerging risks can consume attention without a disciplined stopping rule.	Explicit evidence gates can tell the CRO when to investigate further and when to kill the hypothesis.	What evidence would justify continuing, parking or killing RDM-03?

Decision area

Guard from this dependency

Create with this dependency

Decision question

RISK OWNERSHIP

The dependency may sit between underwriting, exposure, modelling, engineering and operations.

Naming the dependency can create a clearer enterprise owner or escalation route.

Who owns RDM-03 if no existing risk category contains the whole mechanism?

RISK TAXONOMY

RDM-03 may not fit cleanly inside cyber, property, operational or catastrophe categories.

A dependency view can complement taxonomy without forcing premature reclassification.

Where should RDM-03 sit in the enterprise risk view if it survives?

CROSS-CLASS EXPOSURE

Several classes may inherit the same external system dependency while being managed separately.

A cross-class view could reveal common exposure that no single class sees alone.

Where could RDM-03 connect classes currently governed independently?

RISK APPETITE

Risk appetite may be expressed by class or peril rather than by dependency concentration.

A dependency-level boundary could inform appetite without replacing existing limits.

Would RDM-03 require a new appetite question or only a reinterpretation of existing ones?

SCENARIO ESCALATION

A modelled system event may not reach the threshold for enterprise scenario review.

A bounded trigger could define when RDM-03 deserves escalation and when it does not.

What evidence threshold should move RDM-03 into enterprise scenario testing?

CAPITAL IMPLICATION

Hidden correlation could alter enterprise views of concentration and diversification.

A tested dependency could sharpen capital discussion while still allowing NULL if immaterial.

Where could RDM-03 change the enterprise view of diversification or concentration?

GOVERNANCE

No standing committee may own a dependency that cuts across traditional risk silos.

A named decision pathway can prevent the issue becoming everyone's concern and nobody's decision.

Which governance body should act if RDM-03 survives initial testing?

KILL / CONTINUE

Emerging risks can consume attention without a disciplined stopping rule.

Explicit evidence gates can tell the CRO when to investigate further and when to kill the hypothesis.

What evidence would justify continuing, parking or killing RDM-03?

THE REINSURANCE QUESTION

IF THE MECHANISM CROSSES CLASSES AND FUNCTIONS, WHO OWNS THE ENTERPRISE CONSEQUENCE AND THE DECISION TO ACT?

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.

THREE BUYING OPTIONS

CONSEQUENCE REPORT.
OPPORTUNITY REPORT.
OR BOTH.

01 / CONSEQUENCE REPORT

GUARD FROM THIS DEPENDENCY.

THIS DESK RECEIVES: CROSS-CLASS EXPOSURE PATHWAYS, ENTERPRISE OWNERSHIP QUESTIONS, ESCALATION POINTS, CAPITAL IMPLICATIONS AND DISPROOF CRITERIA.

€25KFIXED

02 / OPPORTUNITY REPORT

CREATE WITH THIS DEPENDENCY.

THIS DESK RECEIVES: GOVERNANCE, ESCALATION, CROSS-FUNCTIONAL CONTROLS AND STRATEGIC RESPONSE OPTIONS.

€25KFIXED

03 / BOTH

GUARD + CREATE.

Two complete positions from one dependency and shared evidence base.

€40KFIXED · SAVE €10K

OTHER REINSURANCE DESKS / PROTODESKS

Accumulation / Exposure Management Portfolio / Aggregate Management Treaty / Specialty Underwriting Technical Risk / Engineering Actuarial / Analytics Claims / Loss Scenario Cross-Class Dependency Owner

RDM-03 evidence boundary: initiating events observed; wider propagation modelled; correlation inferred; insured consequence unproven. GUARD, CREATE and DECISION QUESTION rows are outside-in decision views, not claims about any institution's actual portfolio, models or internal position.

This desk is also published as a function of the Reinsurance surface: CRO / Enterprise Risk →