Parakeet RiskBook a demo
Parakeet Risk
USE CASES / CARRIER RECOMMENDATIONS

CARRIER RECOMMENDATIONS

Make every closed recommendation count before renewal.

A completed work order is a start. This Rosella concept follows the dated test, review decision, and closure record a property risk owner needs for the broker and insurer.

Book a recommendations walkthroughInspect the evidence
Interactive prototype below. No live carrier update or broker email.
ParakeetRosella / evidence ledger
Sample data, concept demo

Fictional Cedar Plant / 06 May 2026 carrier survey

One finding. Four distinct states.

Work can be complete while proof is still missing. Only the carrier can accept a recommendation as closed.

Open3
Work reported0
Verified0
Carrier accepted0
01 / Site and controlFictional plant plan
NORTH / WATER SUPPLY
ReservoirFire water
Production bayProperty / BI
SW-03 / Switchgear finding remains open · scope and exposure unknown

Select the fire pump or ESFR finding to inspect its original survey wording and evidence.

02 / Recommendation recordFP-17

Fire pump flow test

Open
Original survey wording“Provide evidence of a completed fire pump flow test and confirm the reported impairment has been cleared.”
Source carrier
Fictional property insurer (unnamed)
Survey date
06 May 2026
Owner / due
Property risk owner
15 Nov 2026
Site / control
Pump house / fire water supply
Cost to close
$18,000Fictional contractor quote, 15 Sep 2026
Property / BI path
Fire reaches the production bay while fire water performance is uncertain. Property damage and downtime are the relevant loss paths.
03 / Evidence trailFiles and decisions · sample
  1. 01
    Completed work orderNo work order attached at survey intake
    Pending
  2. 02
    Dated flow test resultRequired result not in this view
    Pending
  3. 03
    Reviewer decisionNo verification decision on file
    Pending
  4. 04
    Broker-facing closure noteDraft only · carrier acceptance unconfirmed
    Withheld

The insurer list still shows an open finding. Field work and review have not yet established closure.

04 / Dollar lensSample model, not a result
Pump unavailableNot modeledProperty + BI severity
Pump functionalNot modeledProperty + BI severity

Scenario difference withheld until assumption is applied

Sample assumption for a fictional production bay fire: pump unavailable = $5M property + $4M business interruption; pump functional = $3M property + $2M business interruption. Source: illustrative internal worksheet, not an engineering study. Confidence is low; fire frequency, values and downtime have not been validated. This is not expected loss, avoided loss, savings or a premium forecast.

Local interaction only. No live record changed and no broker or carrier message was sent.

01/ THE EXPENSIVE GAP

The fix is done. The finding is still open.

At the fictional Cedar Plant, a fire-pump repair is marked complete in a contractor email. The dated flow-test result is missing from the review record. The insurer's list can still show the finding as open, even while lower consequence actions get attention because they are easier to close.

The cost is uncertainty at renewal: which protection is working, what evidence proves it, and what should be discussed with the carrier. A modeled loss comparison can help prioritize the question, but it is not a premium forecast.

WORK REPORTEDRepair completeREVIEW BLOCKERDated test result missingCARRIER STATEAcceptance unconfirmed
Industrial conveyors and pipework against a blue sky
PROPERTY CONTROLS NEED EVIDENCE FROM THE FIELD
02/ TURN FINDINGS INTO WORK

From survey wording to a site decision.

In a founder-led first-list pilot, we would structure the open recommendations with the property team before treating any estimate as a decision input.

01

Keep the source

Bring in the survey wording, carrier, and issue date. Keep the original finding beside every later decision.

02

Connect the site

Group repeat findings and link each one to a site, control, and plausible property, machinery breakdown, or business interruption scenario.

03

Price what you can

Record a supported cost to close and loss estimate with its source and uncertainty. Leave missing inputs unknown.

04

Put someone on it

Assign an owner and due date so the test, photo, and reviewer decision can follow the work into renewal.

03/ PROVE THE CONTROL

Reported is not verified.

The closure record follows the actual control, not a task-board checkbox. A work order shows the repair was reported. A dated result or site photo shows what was observed. A reviewer then decides whether the evidence answers the original survey finding.

The broker can use the resulting note in a renewal discussion. Only the carrier can confirm whether it accepts the recommendation as closed.

FP-17 / FICTIONAL CEDAR PLANTFire-pump closure recordSample data, concept demo
  1. Work reported
    Completed pump service order

    The contractor reports the repair complete. This alone cannot verify the control.

  2. Field evidence
    Dated flow test result

    A measured result and test date tie the repair to pump performance.

  3. Reviewer decision
    Evidence checked against the finding

    A named reviewer records why the evidence is enough or asks for another test.

  4. Renewal note
    Broker-facing closure brief

    A concise note packages the finding, work, evidence, and review decision for the broker.

Verified review and carrier acceptance are separate decisions

04/ DECIDE WHERE CAPITAL GOES NEXT

Put the consequential unknowns first.

This fictional survey-day order is a review agenda, not a spend recommendation. It keeps cost, possible property and business interruption severity, and missing inputs visible together. The broker-facing renewal brief can then separate verified controls from findings still awaiting evidence or carrier acceptance.

SAMPLE DATA, CONCEPT DEMO / FICTIONAL CEDAR PLANTREVIEW ORDER, NOT AUTOMATED CAPITAL ALLOCATION
  1. 01 / FP-17Fire-pump performance

    Confirm dated flow-test evidence

    COST TO CLOSE$18,000Fictional contractor quote, 15 Sep 2026
    LOSS SCENARIO$9M → $5MIllustrative event severity if the pump is unavailable vs functional
    UNCERTAINTYLow confidence
  2. 02 / ESFR-08Warehouse sprinkler impairment

    Confirm stock height and impairment window

    COST TO CLOSEUnknownScope has not been priced
    LOSS SCENARIOUnknownStock heights and impairment duration are missing
    UNCERTAINTYNot estimated
  3. 03 / SW-03Switchgear housekeeping

    Validate field scope and asset values

    COST TO CLOSEUnknownField scope has not been confirmed
    LOSS SCENARIOUnknownEquipment values and downtime are missing
    UNCERTAINTYNot estimated

FP-17 illustrative single-event severity assumes pump unavailable: $5M property + $4M business interruption; pump functional: $3M property + $2M business interruption. The $4M difference is conditional scenario severity, not expected or avoided loss, savings, or premium reduction. All values are fictional and low confidence; no frequency or policy terms were modeled.

FOUNDER-LED FIRST-LIST PILOT

Bring the open list. Leave with a clearer renewal story.

We can review your current recommendation list together and scope a paid pilot around the evidence and property decisions that matter most. The interactive record above is a concept demo, not a live integration or carrier submission.

Book a recommendations walkthrough