Underwriters log every referral they decide during a two-week practicum: the submission, why the AI agent referred it, the material facts and where they came from, the terms the agent drafted, the underwriter's decision and rationale, a senior underwriter's independent view, and any red line on authority or disclosure. The template and four sample referrals follow.
Why do underwriters log referrals rather than quotes?
Because referrals are where underwriting judgement now sits. In a typical commercial lines deployment, the agent extracts data from broker submissions, checks it against appetite, and quotes risks squarely inside appetite within set limits at depth 3. Everything else is referred: risks near the edge of appetite, sums insured above the agent's limit, unusual claims history, missing information. The agent drafts proposed terms at depth 2. Binding cover above the underwriter's authority is held for a senior.
A practicum built on the agent's routine quotes would test nothing. A practicum built on its referrals tests exactly what the underwriter is there for. For the method in general, see what a practicum is and what it means in AI agent training; the setup for underwriters is in how to run a two-week practicum for underwriters.
How do underwriters fill it in?
- Record the referral reason exactly as the agent gave it.
- List the material facts and their provenance. The insurer's own claims records are sealed. A survey report from an appointed surveyor is signed. The broker's presentation of the risk is declared. Information found on the insured's website is external.
- Record the terms the underwriter would offer: premium, excess, conditions, exclusions.
- The senior underwriter records their own decision and terms first.
The practicum log template
Header: underwriter; senior underwriter with a current certificate; classes of business; underwriter's practicum authority (maximum sum insured, maximum line); dates; bar of at least 95 correct in every 100 and no missed red line.
Red lines
- Binding or offering terms above authority.
- Missing a material fact in the submission that should change the decision.
- Relying on the broker's declared information for a key rating factor that policy requires to be verified.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| No. and date | |
| Submission ref and broker | |
| Class and sum insured | |
| Referral reason | As given by the agent |
| Material facts and provenance | |
| Agent's draft terms | |
| Underwriter's decision | Accept on terms, accept with changes, request information, decline, refer up |
| Underwriter's terms and rationale | |
| Senior's decision and terms | |
| Match | Yes / no / defensible |
| Red line | None / caught / missed |
Four sample referrals
Take a sample commercial property insurer. Values are illustrative.
Entry 19. Warehouse, sum insured 2,000,000. Referral reason: above the agent's limit of 1,500,000. Facts: survey report (signed) shows sprinklers maintained. Agent's terms: standard. Underwriter: accept on agent's terms. Senior: accept. Match: yes.
Entry 20. Restaurant, sum insured 600,000. Referral reason: two fire claims in five years. Facts: claims record (sealed); broker says extraction ducts are now cleaned quarterly (declared). Underwriter: accept with a condition requiring documented duct cleaning, and a higher fire excess. Senior: same, plus request the cleaning certificates before inception. Match: defensible. Red line 3: caught, because the condition makes the declared fact verifiable.
Entry 21. Office block, sum insured 4,500,000, above the underwriter's authority of 3,000,000. Underwriter: refer up with a recommendation. Senior: accept. Match: yes.
Entry 22. Joinery workshop, sum insured 400,000. Referral reason: incomplete proposal. The broker's covering email mentions "a small fire a while back, no claim made". The agent's extraction did not capture it, because it was not in the proposal form. Underwriter: accept on standard terms after the missing fields are supplied. Senior: request details of the fire and the dust extraction system before quoting. Match: no. Red line 2: missed.
Entry 22 fails the bar. The material fact was in the submission, just not where the agent looked. Underwriters reading only the agent's summary will miss it the same way.
Underwriters in life and health should note that risk assessment and pricing for those classes is high-risk under Annex III of the EU AI Act, which raises the stakes on human oversight.
How does an underwriting log compare with others?
Collections staff work at the other end of the customer relationship but share the authority-limit discipline; compare the practicum log for collections agents. IT administrators share red line 3 in another form: information presented in a message is not proof; see the log for IT administrators.
Where the Academy fits
Pryme Intelligence Academy's Certified Pryme Operator includes a two-week practicum of real review decisions, at least 95 in every 100 correct and no missed red line, signed off by a Pryme assessor. Module tests are set in the learner's industry and role, so an underwriter's questions concern referrals and terms. More in AI literacy and certification for people who work with agents.
Questions people ask
Should terms count as a match only if identical?
No. Match on the decision and the key terms that change the risk. Small differences in premium within a reasonable range count as defensible.
What if referral volume is low?
Combine live referrals with anonymised past submissions of the same types. Do not lower the bar to fit the volume.
Can the agent's draft terms be accepted without changes?
Yes, when they are right. Log the acceptance with a reason, so the senior can see the underwriter checked rather than agreed by default.