Identify Issues In Regulatory Order

---
name: identify-issues-oregon-regulatory-consent-order
task_id: insurance/identify-issues-in-regulatory-order
description: Agents preparing a board-level issue memorandum on a regulatory consent order summarize the order's findings by checking the order for mathematical consistency, waiver scope, operational feasibility, privilege and confidentiality issues, reporting burden, governance authority, timing constraints, and any prior objections that were not addressed.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Identify Issues in Regulatory Consent Order — Issue Memorandum for Board

## 1. Subject-matter triage

- Confirm whether the source set contains one consent order or multiple related regulatory documents; if there is more than one order, agreement, exhibit, corrective plan, or examiner report, enumerate each instrument before analysis and keep the issue rows document-specific.
- Separate pure findings from operative obligations. Some items are descriptive or already resolved; others change rights, deadlines, or exposure. Only the latter should be treated as live issues.
- If the order contains only one covered respondent or one remedial package, say so explicitly before analyzing the provisions.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Accepting the stated penalty or monetary remedy without checking whether the order’s internal arithmetic is consistent across findings, components, and totals.
- Treating a waiver of hearing or review rights as if it eliminates every possible objection, without testing whether some categories of challenge may still remain.
- Ignoring whether the insurer can operationally complete claims review, notice, reporting, or remediation within the stated period.
- Overlooking privilege, confidentiality, and work-product exposure when the order requires file access, audit cooperation, or outside review.
- Missing open-ended reporting duties that are too vague to operationalize or too broad to manage.
- Failing to check internal approval authority before execution of a settlement or consent order.
- Missing timing gaps between required submissions and board or committee approval cycles.
- Failing to surface prior objections that were raised earlier but not incorporated into the final order.
- Collapsing all findings into a generic summary instead of ranking them by priority and consequence.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- Arithmetic verification: compare each stated component to the stated total and flag any mismatch; where the order uses a distinct compliance measure or specialized finding standard, verify that component separately under the governing regulatory test.
- Waiver scope: analyze waiver language against the governing administrative process and due process baseline; identify what categories of objection may survive even if a general waiver is signed.
- Record access, confidentiality, and privilege: if the order requires file production or reviewer access, assess the language under applicable privilege and confidentiality principles and note whether scope limitations or protective terms may be needed.
- Restitution or claims-review feasibility: measure the remediation burden against the stated deadline, volume, and operational workflow; if the timeline is compressed, assess whether phased implementation, extension, or staging should be explored.
- Sampling and extrapolation: if the order relies on a sample to estimate broader relief, assess the method at a high level for reliability and fit with the population it is meant to represent.
- Reporting burden: recurring reports should be checked for scope, metric definition, population coverage, and termination point; open-ended obligations are a practical and governance risk.
- Governance authority: review internal approval requirements for regulatory settlements or similar commitments and test whether the signing officer had authority or whether board or committee approval was required.
- Timing constraints: compare filing, submission, and implementation deadlines against board meeting cadence and approval mechanics to identify any gap requiring special action.
- Internal vs. regulator figures: if the insurer’s internal monitoring differs from the regulator’s findings, compare the sets of figures at a high level and assess whether the discrepancy matters to the remedy or challenge posture.
- Prior objections not addressed: identify objections from prior submissions that are absent from the final order or consent terms and determine whether they remain relevant.
- Non-actionable findings: distinguish findings that are merely narrative, already cured, or not tied to an operative consequence.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

1. Build a document inventory first: identify the order, any exhibits, any prior response, and any operational or governance documents needed to test authority and timing.
2. For each issue, state the governing authority or source principle that makes it legally meaningful; do not assert a conclusion without naming the rule, statute, regulation, or recognized administrative principle supporting it.
3. For each issue, capture three closing moves: the scale of the issue as reflected in the source materials, the clause or document that interacts with it, and the downstream consequence for the insurer.
4. For arithmetic or finding-consistency checks, compare stated components to totals and note any mismatch or unresolved ambiguity in the source text.
5. For waiver analysis, identify the waiver language, test its breadth, and separate challenges that may still survive from those that are likely surrendered.
6. For access, privilege, and confidentiality questions, identify the scope of the access obligation and whether protective limitations should be considered.
7. For timing and feasibility, compare the deadline to the operational workload and the board calendar; flag any special-meeting or delegated-approval issue if the ordinary cadence will not work.
8. For prior objections, compare the prior submission against the final order and note which objections were omitted, softened, or answered.
9. For non-actionable items, say why the item does not require challenge at a high level rather than restating the finding.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

- Rank issues in priority order from those that affect authority, deadline compliance, or immediate exposure to those that are informative but not outcome-determinative.
- Tie each issue to the provision that creates it, the related provision that limits or complicates it, and the board-level consequence that makes it material.
- If a deadline precedes the next board meeting, identify the gap and the governance step needed to bridge it.
- If the order uses multiple remedial tracks, keep the analysis separate for each track rather than merging them into one blended deadline or burden.
- If the order and prior response conflict, note the conflict explicitly and preserve the distinction between the regulator’s stated position and the insurer’s prior objection.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Issue memorandum organized by priority, written for the board and not as a litigation brief.
- Use an ordinal severity scale defined once up front and apply it uniformly to every issue.
- For each issue, include: severity, short issue title, source provision(s), why it matters, and the recommended position or next step.
- Include a compact arithmetic verification table for any monetary or count-based remedy.
- Include a deadline and governance calendar that highlights near-term obligations, approval steps, and consequences of missing them.
- Include a separate section for items that should not be challenged, with a brief reason for each.
- End with a Recommended Actions section using imperative verbs, a responsible role, and a timing anchor tied to the order or the next governance milestone.