Which evidence should shape the outlook?

1. Lower network volume does not remove catastrophe concentration

Verisk reports that Q2 2026 non-catastrophe assignments were 18.65% below the five-year same-quarter average, while catastrophe assignments were 4.29% below it. Its dataset reflects the XactAnalysis network. (verisk.com)

Desk implication: Separate routine-volume economics from surge commitments. Test both against your own portfolio, inspection arrangements and reviewer availability.

2. Production time is only one component of claim delay

Sedgwick’s 10 September 2026 Loss Adjusting Insights announcement identifies workforce constraints, complex infrastructure exposures, valuation disputes and pressure on claim costs and cycle times. It is a supplier-authored global outlook, not an independent benchmark for routine US residential file production. (sedgwick.com)

Desk implication: Keep production-specific delay measures separate from repair duration, specialist investigation and coverage decisions. Require suppliers to show where their contribution begins and ends.

3. Structured inputs deserve their own investment case

In 11 September 2025 Claims Committee minutes, Citizens described using aerial imagery, automated roof measurements and sketches within Xactimate for catastrophe work. This is a historical carrier example of evidence preparation and integration—not a verified 2026 performance result or a comparison of current suppliers. (citizensfla.com)

Desk implication: Before replacing the estimating team, test whether a better inspection package addresses the dominant return reasons. Improved inputs and managed production should compete for funding on measurable results.