Can reviewers reconstruct the evidence and the workflow?

7. Can material outputs and subsequent changes be traced? — Critical gate

• 0 points: Reviewers cannot reliably identify the evidence behind material statements or estimate items.
• 1 point: Source documents are attached, but reviewers must reconstruct their relationship to the output.
• 2 points: A reviewed sample links material scope and quantities to supporting evidence, identifies assumptions and preserves versions, edits and approval identities.
• 3 points: The proposed workflow repeatedly preserves that record through corrections and export, and an independent reviewer can reconstruct what changed and why.

Evidence to show: An evidence-to-output map, version history and exported example containing the relevant sources and approvals.

Research context: Verisk documents separate audit and estimate-revision reports in XactAnalysis, including version-to-version changes. Availability in a product does not establish that your particular workflow captures and retains the required record. (xactanalysis.helpdocs.io)

8. Has the actual estimating and claims-system hand-off been tested?

• 0 points: Integration is assumed because the supplier uses familiar software.
• 1 point: A demonstration or PDF export works, but the proposed carrier workflow has not been exercised.
• 2 points: A representative test transfers the required editable estimate, attachments, identifiers and statuses into the intended environment, with remaining manual steps documented.
• 3 points: Round-trip correction, failed transfer, retry, duplicate submission and version-conflict scenarios have been tested; retained manual effort is measured.

Evidence to show: A test record naming systems, environments, permissions, artefacts, failures and manual workarounds.

Research context: Verisk’s field-inspection integration documentation explicitly states that available APIs and workflows depend on the partner’s agreement. Treat integration access and entitlements as diligence questions, not implied features. (developerportal.verisk.com)

9. Can you control changes to guidelines, software and AI models?

• 0 points: Production can change without carrier visibility.
• 1 point: Change notices exist, but there is no inventory, impact assessment or retest owner.
• 2 points: Applicable guidelines, configurations and software or model versions have owners, approval requirements and a representative retest set.
• 3 points: A relevant change has been tested against that set, reviewed for material regressions and either approved or rolled back, with affected files identifiable.

Evidence to show: A version register, change log, regression-test results and rollback record.

For non-AI production, assess template, price-list, rule and software changes rather than awarding an exemption.

Research context: The NAIC AI model bulletin addresses lifecycle governance, validation, retesting, data lineage and monitoring. It is model guidance; applicable state expectations must be checked separately. (content.naic.org)