Analyze Counterparty Markup Of Reinsurance Treaty

---
name: analyze-counterparty-markup-reinsurance-treaty
task_id: insurance/analyze-counterparty-markup-of-reinsurance-treaty
description: Agents analyzing a reinsurance treaty counterparty redline should avoid playbook-compliance framing that collapses distinct economic issues, and should test each proposed change against internal positions and the counterparty's stated characterizations.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Analyze Counterparty Markup of Reinsurance Treaty — Redline Review Memorandum

## 1. Subject-matter triage

- Treat the assignment as a counterparty markup review, not a generic contract summary.
- Read the original draft, the redline, the internal playbook, and any cover letter or transmittal together before classifying issues.
- Separate provisions that change economics, risk allocation, dispute process, or credit support from purely conforming edits.
- If multiple treaty mechanics are changed, enumerate each affected provision before analysis and preserve one issue record per provision.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Collateral changes are described as administrative even when they reduce the cedant’s credit support or shift security costs.
- Commission edits are accepted without testing them against internal floor positions or the cedant’s acquisition-cost recovery.
- Profit commission language is read literally without asking whether the threshold makes payment commercially illusory.
- Commutation language is reviewed for form but not for development risk if settlement can occur before losses mature.
- Cover-letter characterizations are relied on instead of tested against the redlined text and its economic effect.
- Distinct issues are collapsed into a single “acceptable/unacceptable” view, obscuring which terms are negotiable and which are not.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- Quota share reinsurance cedes a stated share of premium and loss; evaluate changes from the cedant’s combined-ratio and recovery perspective.
- Ceding commission and sliding-scale commission provisions should be compared to internal minimums and floors, because small textual edits can change expected net economics.
- Profit commission depends on the treaty’s profit definition and margin threshold; if the threshold is high, the provision may be functionally unavailable in ordinary loss scenarios.
- Loss corridor provisions shift moderate loss experience; analyze whether removal, narrowing, or expansion reallocates risk or merely repackages it.
- Collateral and credit support provisions should be read together with any interest-credit or funding-rate change; a rate adjustment does not neutralize a reduction in principal security.
- Commutation clauses create timing and development risk when they permit early settlement before ultimate losses are sufficiently known.
- Arbitration, governing law, and insolvency language are interdependent because dispute forum and choice of law can affect enforceability and insolvency treatment.
- Use the governing treaty, statutory, and industry authority cited in the source documents where available; where not supplied, cite the controlling treaty article, statute, regulation, rule, or standard practice by name in the memo.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

1. Start by enumerating all proposed changes by category: commission, profit commission, collateral, commutation, arbitration, governing law, insolvency, loss corridor, and any other substantive amendment.
2. For each issue, state the relevant internal playbook position and whether the proposed wording falls inside or outside that position.
3. For each commission issue, identify the exact edit, compare it to the internal floor, and explain the cedant-side economic consequence.
4. For each profit commission issue, identify the threshold, test practical availability under ordinary loss experience, and state whether the provision is economically meaningful or illusory.
5. For each collateral issue, analyze the security reduction and any related rate adjustment together, and explain the net effect on credit support.
6. For each commutation issue, identify when settlement can occur, link that timing to loss-development uncertainty, and state the downside if claims later emerge.
7. For each arbitration or governing-law issue, identify the forum or law selected, tie it to the relevant dispute or insolvency rule, and state the practical consequence for enforcement or procedure.
8. For each insolvency or credit-support issue, cross-reference the clause that preserves payment mechanics or secured obligations and explain any capital, recoverability, or regulatory impact.
9. Test the counterparty’s cover letter line by line against the actual redline; flag any statement that overstates neutrality, understates economic burden, or omits a material legal consequence.
10. Classify every issue with a uniform ordinal severity label defined once at the top of the memo, then pair it with an accept, negotiate, or reject recommendation.
11. Close each issue with three moves: identify the scale or threshold implicated, cross-reference the interacting clause or document, and state the downstream consequence for the cedant.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

- Internal playbook limits control acceptance authority; terms below a threshold may require escalation rather than business-level approval.
- Commission, profit commission, and collateral changes should be read as a linked economic package, not as isolated edits.
- Security and interest-credit terms can offset each other only if the offset preserves the cedant’s economic and credit position; do not assume neutralization from wording alone.
- Commutation risk is temporal: the earlier the settlement point relative to loss development, the greater the uncertainty.
- Dispute forum, governing law, and insolvency language can cascade into one another, so analyze them as an enforcement stack.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Write the deliverable as a redline review memorandum in conventional legal-memo form, with a short executive overview followed by categorized issue analysis.
- Define one severity scale at the outset and apply it uniformly to every issue entry.
- For each issue entry, include the proposed change, the internal position, the economic or legal effect, the severity label, and a clear accept / negotiate / reject recommendation.
- Include a dedicated section comparing the counterparty’s cover-letter descriptions to the actual treaty text and effect.
- Include a separate economic impact discussion focused on commission, collateral, and any other terms that directly change the cedant’s recovery or expense profile.
- End with a Recommended Actions section that gives imperative next steps, the responsible role, and a timing anchor tied to the negotiation or execution milestone.
- If the source materials identify controlling authority, cite it by name and section in the relevant analysis rather than stating conclusions without support.