Underwriting authority already comes in tiers by line of business and sum insured. When an AI agent prepares quotes and referrals, the matrix adds two columns: the depth the agent runs at for each action, and the certificate the human approver must hold. Assistant underwriters approve drafts; only senior underwriters release binds above their written authority.
What does this matrix add to existing underwriting authority?
Most insurers already issue each underwriter a letter of authority: classes they may write, maximum line, and the exclusions they may not waive. That letter assumes the underwriter assembled the risk themselves. An agent changes the work. It gathers the submission, checks it against appetite, drafts terms and holds the result. The underwriter's job shifts from building the file to judging one someone else built.
So the matrix asks a sharper question per action: who may release what the agent prepared, after checking what? A bind is hard to undo, so the agent runs it at depth 4 at most, and in many firms it stays held for a person whatever the agent's certificate says. A decline affects a customer directly, and where pricing touches life or health cover in the EU, the EU AI Act lists risk assessment and pricing for those products as high-risk, which raises the bar for human oversight. The general idea is explained in what is an authority matrix?.
How do you fill it in?
- Action: one row per agent capability, per class of business where limits differ.
- Agent depth: 1 for reading the submission, 2 for drafting terms, 3 for issuing within appetite and bounds, 4 for binding.
- Approver tier: assistant underwriter, underwriter, senior underwriter, head of underwriting.
- Limit: sum insured or premium, whichever your letters of authority use.
- Checks before release: name the sources the approver must open. A claims history marked "declared" by the broker is not the same as one marked "signed" by the previous insurer.
- Referral route: where it goes when the agent or the approver hits a limit.
- Certificate: current certificate required to hold the right.
The routing rules that enforce each row are covered in how to set an approver rule for the underwriting team.
The template
| Class of business | Action held by the agent | Agent depth | Approver tier | Limit | Checks before release | Referral route | Certificate required |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Under the table, record the letter-of-authority reference each tier relies on, so the matrix never grants more than the letters do.
A worked example
A hypothetical commercial insurer writes small business property and liability. Its agent prepares renewals and new business quotes. Figures are illustrative.
| Class of business | Action held by the agent | Depth | Approver tier | Limit | Checks before release | Referral route | Certificate required |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Property | Renewal at expiring terms | 3 | Assistant underwriter | Sum insured 2,000,000 | No claims since last renewal in the claims system | Underwriter | Current operator certificate |
| Property | New business quote with standard terms | 2 | Underwriter | Sum insured 5,000,000 | Survey report source and its provenance | Senior underwriter | Current operator certificate |
| Property | Bind cover | 4 | Senior underwriter | Sum insured 10,000,000 | Signed proposal, premium terms, sanctions screen result | Head of underwriting | Current operator certificate |
| Liability | Waive a standard exclusion | 2 | Senior underwriter | Any | Reason recorded, appetite statement | Head of underwriting | Current operator certificate |
| Any | Decline a risk | 2 | Underwriter | Any | Reason given matches appetite statement | Senior underwriter on request | Current operator certificate |
| Any | Backdate cover | Refused by customer limit | No one | n/a | n/a | Manual process with head of underwriting | n/a |
Look at the renewal row. The agent can issue renewals at depth 3, but holds any renewal where its sources disagree, for example when the broker's declared claims history differs from the claims system. That held item is exactly where an assistant underwriter needs training: the safe answer is to trust the sealed source, not the declaration, and to refer if they cannot reconcile them.
Cover matters as much as limits. Plan who covers each tier during renewal peaks with a reviewer rota for the underwriting team. Other teams use the same shape with different risks, such as the approver authority matrix for the IT team and the approver authority matrix for the support team. For the skills behind each tier, see AI agent skills by role.
Where the Academy fits
Pryme Intelligence Academy's Operator track teaches underwriters how a governed agent decides, how to read a held quote, and when to refuse. Module tests are set in the learner's industry and role, so underwriters answer insurance cases. The certificate lasts 12 months and is checked at source by number or QR code, which suits a matrix that ties authority to a current certificate.
Questions people ask
Should an agent ever bind cover without a person?
Only if the business has evidence from its own cases that the agent clears every gate at depth 4 for that class, and the role's ceiling allows it. Many insurers keep binds held at every depth and use the agent's work to speed up the human release.
How do letters of authority and the matrix fit together?
The letter grants personal authority; the matrix applies it to agent-held work. The matrix may narrow a letter, never widen it.
Who signs off changes to the matrix?
The head of underwriting, with the agent owner. Any change that widens an approver's limit or the agent's depth should leave a record of who agreed it and why.