CARRIER RECOMMENDATIONS

Make every closed recommendation count before renewal.

Rosella / 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

01
Completed work orderNo work order attached at survey intake
Pending
02
Dated flow test resultRequired result not in this view
Pending
03
Reviewer decisionNo verification decision on file
Pending
04
Broker-facing closure noteDraft only · carrier acceptance unconfirmed
Withheld

Remove dated test result from sample file

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

04 / Dollar lensSample model, not a result

Apply disclosed sample assumption

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

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.

Keep the source

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

Connect the site

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

Price what you can

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

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

Work reported
Completed pump service order
The contractor reports the repair complete. This alone cannot verify the control.
Field evidence
Dated flow test result
A measured result and test date tie the repair to pump performance.
Reviewer decision
Evidence checked against the finding
A named reviewer records why the evidence is enough or asks for another test.
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.

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
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
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

The fix is done. The finding is still open.

WORK REPORTEDRepair completeREVIEW BLOCKERDated test result missingCARRIER STATEAcceptance unconfirmed

Reported is not verified.

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

Put the consequential unknowns first.