REINSURANCE · DESK / PROTODESKRDM-03

TREATY / SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING

RDM-03 can create underwriting questions that are not simply 'more data-centre risk': whether the dependency changes attachment, wording, structure, pricing, cedant differentiation or the evidence required before capacity is offered.

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 SELECTION	A cedant or portfolio may appear acceptable while carrying an unrecognised common grid dependency.	A dependency test could differentiate risks that look similar under conventional underwriting information.	Where could RDM-03 change a risk-selection decision?
02	CEDANT DIFFERENTIATION	Cedants may be compared without visibility into how their exposures interact with large-load / grid behaviour.	New evidence could support sharper differentiation rather than broad sector caution.	What would RDM-03 need to reveal to distinguish one cedant from another?
03	ATTACHMENT	Attachment assumptions may rely on loss behaviour that omits correlated system-level propagation.	A tested dependency pathway could indicate where attachment remains robust and where it may not.	Where could RDM-03 challenge an attachment assumption?
04	LIMIT / CAPACITY	Capacity may be offered without a clear view of common dependency across the underlying exposure.	A bounded dependency view could support more discriminating limit and capacity decisions.	Where could RDM-03 change how much capacity is offered?
05	WORDING	Existing wording may not align cleanly with a loss pathway that crosses data-centre and grid boundaries.	A clearer causal pathway could reveal which wording questions actually matter before changing terms.	Which wording assumption would RDM-03 force the underwriter to examine?
06	STRUCTURE	Traditional structure may not isolate the dependency if multiple exposures respond to the same contingency.	A new structure could be considered only if the dependency proves material and separable.	Could RDM-03 justify a different treaty or specialty structure?
07	PRICING	Price may not reflect a dependency that is absent from the current exposure and scenario view.	Evidence of material dependency could support differentiated pricing rather than generic loading.	What would have to be true for RDM-03 to justify a pricing change?
08	UNDERWRITING EVIDENCE	The underwriting file may not contain the operational or grid attributes needed to test RDM-03.	A focused evidence request could improve underwriting without requiring a wholesale data rebuild.	Which additional evidence would most change the underwriting decision?

Decision area

Guard from this dependency

Create with this dependency

Decision question

RISK SELECTION

A cedant or portfolio may appear acceptable while carrying an unrecognised common grid dependency.

A dependency test could differentiate risks that look similar under conventional underwriting information.

Where could RDM-03 change a risk-selection decision?

CEDANT DIFFERENTIATION

Cedants may be compared without visibility into how their exposures interact with large-load / grid behaviour.

New evidence could support sharper differentiation rather than broad sector caution.

What would RDM-03 need to reveal to distinguish one cedant from another?

ATTACHMENT

Attachment assumptions may rely on loss behaviour that omits correlated system-level propagation.

A tested dependency pathway could indicate where attachment remains robust and where it may not.

Where could RDM-03 challenge an attachment assumption?

LIMIT / CAPACITY

Capacity may be offered without a clear view of common dependency across the underlying exposure.

A bounded dependency view could support more discriminating limit and capacity decisions.

Where could RDM-03 change how much capacity is offered?

WORDING

Existing wording may not align cleanly with a loss pathway that crosses data-centre and grid boundaries.

A clearer causal pathway could reveal which wording questions actually matter before changing terms.

Which wording assumption would RDM-03 force the underwriter to examine?

STRUCTURE

Traditional structure may not isolate the dependency if multiple exposures respond to the same contingency.

A new structure could be considered only if the dependency proves material and separable.

Could RDM-03 justify a different treaty or specialty structure?

PRICING

Price may not reflect a dependency that is absent from the current exposure and scenario view.

Evidence of material dependency could support differentiated pricing rather than generic loading.

What would have to be true for RDM-03 to justify a pricing change?

UNDERWRITING EVIDENCE

The underwriting file may not contain the operational or grid attributes needed to test RDM-03.

A focused evidence request could improve underwriting without requiring a wholesale data rebuild.

Which additional evidence would most change the underwriting decision?

THE REINSURANCE QUESTION

COULD RDM-03 ALTER ATTACHMENT, WORDING, STRUCTURE, PRICING OR CEDANT DIFFERENTIATION ACROSS RELEVANT BOOKS?

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: ATTACHMENT, WORDING, STRUCTURE, PRICING, CEDANT DIFFERENTIATION AND UNDERWRITING ASSUMPTIONS THAT MAY NEED TO BE TESTED.

€25KFIXED

02 / OPPORTUNITY REPORT

CREATE WITH THIS DEPENDENCY.

THIS DESK RECEIVES: NEW STRUCTURES, PRICING LOGIC, DIFFERENTIATION AND DEPENDENCY-AWARE UNDERWRITING PROPOSITIONS.

€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 Technical Risk / Engineering CRO / Enterprise Risk 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: Treaty / Specialty Underwriting →