CONTEXT(CLONE)
Sign in

Watch wording changes and recheck only what depends on them

For: Product governance lead or wordings manager at an insurer or managing agent

Pattern: WatchtowerNeeds a connectorDesigned for 20 to 500 agents
Get early accessSign in to use

The pain today

A clause edit in a base wording silently affects endorsements, customer summaries, claims guidance and broker templates built on it. The dependants are found late, often through a complaint.

The ask

“Watch our wording library. When a base wording or clause changes, show me which endorsements, summary documents, claims guidance notes and templates quote or depend on the changed text, and recheck only those for contradictions.”

Plain words, as you would say it to a colleague. Edit it to fit your case before you send it.

What you attach or connect

  • Wording library with version history
  • Endorsement library
  • Customer summary documents
  • Claims guidance notes and broker templates

The unit of work

One worker task per one changed clause paired with one dependent document.

Why a swarm fits

One clause change fans out to many dependants, each checked alone against the old and new clause. Most of the library is untouched by any one change, so redoing everything would waste the budget.

Not for

Approving a wording change. It shows what the change touches; product governance decides whether to make it.

The decision tree

5 typed decisions, each with an action for every answer

At fixed moments in a run, the engine puts one narrow question to a decision model. The decision model never writes text: it answers yes or no with a probability, picks from listed options, or gives a score, about a small slice of the material. The engine then does exactly what this tree says, which is what makes the run auditable. The thresholds are the template's design values, not measured results.

  1. Planner, while planning

    Scope checkA choice among options

    Before work starts on a unit

    Does the edit to this clause change what is insured, excluded, defined or required, rather than numbering, spelling or layout?

    Sees only: The old and new text of one clause

    Why: Cosmetic edits should not trigger a recheck of every dependant.

    • Meaning changedthenAccept
    • Form onlythenSkip this unit
    • UnclearthenEscalate to a strong model

  2. After workers, the judge checks

    Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability

    After a worker answers

    Does the quoted sentence in this endorsement, summary or guidance note restate or rely on the clause that changed?

    Sees only: The old clause text and one quoted sentence from a dependent document

    Why: Keeps the impact list to documents that truly depend on the clause.

    • Yes: 0.85 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.85thenEscalate to a strong model
    • No: below 0.50thenReject and retry

  3. Reconciler, while merging

    Conflict checkA choice among options

    While reconciling

    Does the dependent sentence now tell a customer, broker or handler something the new clause no longer says?

    Sees only: The new clause text and one dependent sentence

    Why: A summary that contradicts the wording is a conduct risk, so it is flagged rather than fixed silently.

    • Now contradicts the wordingthenMark unresolved
    • Still consistentthenAccept
    • Cannot tell from the textthenEscalate to a strong model

  4. Run control, between rounds

    Another round?Yes or no, with a probability

    Between rounds

    Do the dependants found in this round themselves get quoted by further documents that have not been checked?

    Sees only: The list of affected dependants and the documents recorded as quoting them

    Why: Follows the dependency chain until it ends, and no further.

    • Yes: 0.60 or higherthenContinue
    • Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.60thenContinue
    • No: below 0.30thenStop

  5. Accountable person, before anything is settled

    Person decidesYes or no, with a probability

    Before anything is reported as settled

    Does this impact note involve a document that customers or brokers rely on to understand their cover?

    Sees only: One impact note with its quoted dependants

    Why: Customer-facing corrections are approved by product governance, never issued by the run.

    Accountable: The product governance lead approves each wording change and every customer-facing correction.

    • Yes: 0.20 or higherthenAsk a person
    • Unsure: 0.05 up to 0.20thenAsk a person
    • No: below 0.05thenAccept

The fleet: who does what

Model tiers by role, not brands: you choose the models. Strong reasoning models plan and reconcile, small fast models do the wide work, and the judge is a decision model from a different family, so it does not share the workers' blind spots.

  1. Planner

    A strong reasoning model keeps the dependency map between clauses and the documents that quote or rely on them.

    Decisions here:1. Scope check

  2. Workers

    Small fast workers from an open-weight family, one per changed clause and dependent document.

    Designed for 20 to 500 agents, one worker task per one changed clause paired with one dependent document. Each worker receives only its own unit.

  3. Judge, from a different model family

    A decision model from a different family checks that the dependent text now contradicts or still matches the clause.

    Decisions here:2. Evidence check

  4. Reconciler

    A strong reasoning model issues one impact note per change and lists dependants left unchecked, with reasons.

    Decisions here:3. Conflict check4. Another round?

  5. Accountable person

    The product governance lead approves each wording change and every customer-facing correction.

    Decisions here:5. Person decides

Checked before anything is accepted

  • Each impact quotes the old clause, the new clause and the dependent sentence
  • Renumbering and formatting changes are separated from changes of meaning
  • Dependants judged unaffected are listed, not hidden
  • Customer-facing documents are always rechecked when their base clause changes

What comes back

  • Impact note per wording change
  • Dependent documents that now contradict the wording, with quotes
  • Dependants rechecked and found consistent
  • Gaps in the dependency map

What to measure

  • Time from a wording change to a complete impact list
  • Contradictions found by the run versus found by complaints
  • Share of flagged impacts the wordings manager confirms
  • Cost per change processed

Names of measures only. No result is claimed for this template.

Templates open in the workspace chat with the ask filled in. Nothing runs until you send it.

Get early accessSign in to use

More in Insurance and claims

Map one exposure across the whole wording portfolio

For: Wordings manager or portfolio underwriter responsible for product wordings

When a new exposure appears, nobody knows which wordings, endorsements and legacy versions cover it, exclude it or say nothing.

Pattern: Map, verify, reduceNeeds scale6 decisionsDesigned for 40 to 800 agents

Prepare a coverage brief with clauses for and against

For: Claims handler or coverage specialist preparing a position on a complex commercial loss

The schedule, wording, endorsements and loss report each run long.

Pattern: Cross-examinationRuns today7 decisionsDesigned for 4 to 32 agents

Test a fraud pattern hypothesis before it is acted on

For: Special investigations lead examining a suspected organised pattern across referred files

A suspected pattern, such as the same repairer invoices across many files, is persuasive once stated.

Pattern: Adversarial reviewNeeds live models6 decisionsDesigned for 10 to 200 agents