Treaty wording comparison three ways at once — last year, the slip and the market clause — with the slip as the judge
Every changed clause found before signing, not when a claim tests it.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Checking a reinsurance treaty's new draft wording, clause by clause, before it is signed. Treaty Wording Comparison does it three ways at once — against last year's signed wording, against the firm-order slip and against the LMA or house clause — so the question it answers is not only “what changed?” but “is this what we agreed?”.
How to choose AI solutions for insurance →
Updated
The firm-order slip is agreed in late November or early December. The broker's draft wording follows, often in several drafts, and the last of them can land in the final fortnight before 1 January — while the same contract manager has other programmes renewing that day.
Then the reading starts: 60 pages or more, checked against last year's signed wording, the slip and the LMA and house clauses, by eye, across two or three PDFs. A two-way compare shows what changed since last year, but not whether the slip agreed it. So an hours clause that moved from 72 to 168 hours, or a reinstatement premium that lost “100% as to time”, reads like ordinary drafting and is signed. Nobody notices until a claim tests it.
Estimated split, in hours, for one property catastrophe draft read by hand and with the solution.
Six specialist agents read, map, compare and rate every clause; the contract manager queries the broker and signs.
Harrowgate Mutual's property catastrophe excess of loss programme renews on 1 January 2027. Northmere Re writes 12.5% of Layer 3. It is Tuesday 15 December, 17 days out, and the broker's Draft 2 has arrived. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Clara has 23 programmes renewing on 1 January — 12 of them hers, 11 with Tom Brannigan. Each row shows the cedant, Northmere's line, the broker, the latest draft and three counts: changed since last year, against the slip, off the market clause. Seven clauses are not as agreed across four programmes; Harrowgate Mutual is at the top, with queries due.
Alerts at 21, 14 and 7 days before inception for any wording not signed.
Draft 2 from Ashby Whitlock Re: 64 pages, 38 articles, 162 clauses. The agents read it beside last year's 61-page signed wording, link all 34 lines of the firm-order slip agreed on 1 December to the clauses that must carry them, and compare every clause three ways. The run log shows each step and how long it took.
“Three-way comparer · against the slip — 6 as agreed · 5 slip silent · 3 not as agreed.”
146 clauses are the same in all three and fold away. Article 12.2(a) does not: windstorm, hail, tornado, cyclone and hurricane losses over 168 consecutive hours. Slip line 22 agrees 72 hours for those perils, with 168 only for earthquake, flood and wildfire. The clause turns red, not as agreed, with the slip line printed inside it and a line drawn to it on the slip.
Critical: “Two windstorms up to seven days apart become one loss occurrence, with one retention.”
Article 7.2 makes the reinstatement premium pro rata as to time; slip line 10 agrees 100% as to time. A full-limit loss on 1 September would bring $9.28M of reinstatement premium instead of $27.75M, and Northmere's 12.5% share of the gap is $2.31M. Article 6.2 puts ECO and XPL at 100% where slip line 16 agrees 90%.
The impact rater describes what a change does. It never says a change is acceptable.
All 34 slip lines, each beside the clause that carries it and the draft's own words. 31 are carried; lines 10, 16 and 22 are not as agreed. Underneath, the changes the slip says nothing about: MGA business brought into business covered, notice of loss, follow the settlements, offset and the days to appoint an arbitrator.
Four clauses depart from the LMA or Northmere house clause. Two are new this year: the hours clause against NRE-LO-01 and notice of loss against NRE-NL-01, which drops the 30-day, 50%-of-retention trigger. Two were accepted at the 2025 renewal and carried since: extended expiration with no 168-hour cap, and sanctions naming only US law against LMA3100.
“Without the trigger, a storm reserved at $250M (62% of the retention) need not be notified until Harrowgate thinks it will reach the layer.”
One query per finding, to Marcus Lyle at Ashby Whitlock Re: what the draft says, what the slip line agrees, and the words asked back. Each names who decides if it is not corrected — Daniel Ferreira for terms and price. Nothing leaves until Clara sends it.
“Article 12.2(a) reads 168 consecutive hours … Slip line 22 agrees 72 hours for these perils … Please restore 72 hours.”
Clara sends the eight queries. By 16:20 Marcus replies with Draft 3: the hours, reinstatement and ECO wording had been carried over from another cedant's draft and are corrected; the MGA wording and notice go back to expiring. Harrowgate asks to keep 18.3, with a 2% ex gratia cap, 20.2 and 25.3.
Draft 3 is compared three ways in 3 minutes 13 seconds. 12.2(a), 7.2, 6.2, 1.2 and 16.1 are back to expiring; all 34 slip lines are carried; three clauses the slip is silent on go to counsel. Article 12.2(a) reads 72 hours again, the words of slip line 22.
“Draft 3 compared · nothing contradicts the slip.”
The contract summary could not be signed while three clauses were not as agreed. Now Ruth Abernethy accepts 18.3, 20.2 and 25.3 with reasons kept on the file, and Clara signs the summary on Draft 3 — 34 of 34 slip lines carried, 0 not as agreed. It goes to Daniel Ferreira and the reinsurance accounting team.
“Signed by Clara Vos · Tue 15 Dec 2026 · 17 days before inception · Draft 3.”
The same Harrowgate wording, seen by the four people who carry it — the contract manager, the underwriter, counsel and the broker.
Six specialist agents read, map, compare and rate every clause; the contract manager queries the broker and signs.
Splits each draft and last year's signed wording into articles and clauses, keeping page and line for every clause, and pairs renumbered clauses by meaning.
Reads the firm-order slip line by line and links each line to the clause that must carry it, recording the words that carry it.
Redlines every clause word by word against last year and the LMA or house clause, and tests it against its slip line: as agreed, not as agreed or slip silent.
Rates each finding critical, high, medium or low by your materiality settings, says in plain words what it does to the cover, and pulls the exposure note from the pricing file.
Drafts one query per finding to the broker, quoting the slip line and the draft's words, with the correction asked — or, for a change the slip never mentioned, asks for the intent.
Builds the contract summary from the final draft — parties, period, layers, hours, reinstatements, premium, exclusions, law — with every term cited to its clause.
Queries the broker and signs. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask why a clause is not as agreed, what a change costs, or what the slip says. Every answer cites the draft, the slip line, last year's wording or the clause library.
Why is 12.2(a) not as agreed?
Draft 2 sets windstorm, hail, tornado, cyclone and hurricane losses over 168 consecutive hours. The firm-order slip, line 22, agrees 72 hours for those perils and 168 hours only for earthquake, flood and wildfire. Last year's wording and house clause NRE-LO-01 both say 72. Two landfalls up to seven days apart would be one loss occurrence with one retention; Daniel's re-run takes the Layer 3 1-in-100 loss from $118M to $171M.
What would the reinstatement change cost us?
Draft 2 makes reinstatement premium pro rata as to time; slip line 10 agrees 100% as to time. For a full-limit loss on 1 September, reinstatement premium would be $9.28M instead of $27.75M at 100% — 122 of 365 days left. Northmere's 12.5% share of the gap is $2.31M.
Show only what contradicts or is missing from the slip
Switched the redline to Against the slip. Draft 2 contradicts 3 slip lines — 10 reinstatements, 16 ECO / XPL, 22 loss occurrence — and makes 5 changes the slip never mentions: 1.2 MGA business, 16.1 notice, 18.3 ex gratia, 20.2 offset, 25.3 arbitration days. The 6 changes the slip agreed are dimmed.
Which clauses have we accepted off-market before?
Two, both since 2025: 22.1 extended expiration with no 168-hour cap against NRE-EE-02, and 24.1 sanctions naming only US law against LMA3100. Both were changed without a slip line in 2025 and signed twice since. They are on Ruth Abernethy's list for the 2028 renewal.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
How drafts are compared, what counts as material and who decides are settings, set for your book.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Default lens | All three | All three · Against the slip · Since last year · Against market |
| Library version (LMA and house clauses) | 2026.4 | 2026.4 · 2026.3 |
| Hours clause changes | Critical | Critical · High |
| Reinstatements, limits, retentions, ECO / XPL | High | High · Critical · Medium |
| Follow, offset, law, arbitration | Medium | Medium · High · Low |
| A not-as-agreed clause blocks signing | On | Until corrected, or accepted by the treaty underwriter |
| Alert before inception | 21, 14 and 7 days | 21, 14 and 7 days · 30, 14 and 7 days |
| Broker reply expected within | 2 working days | 1 · 2 · 5 working days, then a reminder is drafted |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample programme · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (Deloitte ceded reinsurance survey — 71% of carriers say late data leads to manual work and errors; Guy Carpenter via Artemis — global property catastrophe rate on line down 12% at 1 January 2026). Background: Lloyd's, Contract Confidence. People, companies, programmes and clauses named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Checking a reinsurance treaty's new draft wording, clause by clause, before it is signed. Treaty Wording Comparison does it three ways at once — against last year's signed wording, against the firm-order slip and against the LMA or house clause — so the question it answers is not only “what changed?” but “is this what we agreed?”.
A PDF compare shows two-way changes and has no idea what the slip agreed. Here the slip is the judge: a change the slip agreed is marked as agreed with its slip line, a clause that contradicts the slip is marked not as agreed, and a change the slip never mentioned is marked slip silent.
Yes. Any change to the hours or the perils in a loss occurrence period is rated Critical by default, and reinstatements, limits, retentions and ECO / XPL are rated High. In the sample programme it found a 168-hour windstorm period where the slip agreed 72 hours, and reinstatement premium pro rata as to time where the slip agreed 100% as to time.
No. The query drafter drafts one query per finding; it goes only when the contract manager sends it. Agents never edit a wording, never accept a departure and never sign.
Yes. A departure from the slip on terms or price is decided by the treaty underwriter; follow, offset, law and arbitration clauses by counsel. A not-as-agreed clause blocks the contract summary until it is corrected or accepted, and every acceptance keeps its reason on the file.
Yes. It compares the same three things — the draft, last year's signed wording and the slip — whichever side of the contract you sit on, so a head of ceded reinsurance can check the wording every reinsurer will sign.
Yes. It compares against the LMA clauses in force and your own house clauses, by version. Materiality ratings, who decides each kind of clause, the inception alerts and how long the broker has to reply are all settings.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — a sample of past drafts, signed wordings and slips, your house clauses and your contract summary template — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on one of your own renewals first.
A checked renewal submission in days, not weeks, every figure traced.
1-min demoTreaty Underwriting WorkbenchA first view of every program in hours, not days.
1-min demoReinsurance Contract SearchCoverage questions answered with the clause, without waiting on one specialist.
1-min demoWe'll run Treaty Wording Comparison on one of your own past renewals — draft, signed wording and slip.