When the recommended program costs 38% more

Two decisions prepared by the agents with Accept, Reject and Ask, on illustrative data — **Prepared for you** (illustrative data): the compliance agent’s surplus lines affidavit with the three admitted declinations it rests on, and the supervisor agent’s practice-leader sign-off because the program costs more than 25% over the expiring.

The illustrative hotel group’s expiring program cost $470K. The recommended renewal costs $651K — 38.5% more. Nothing is wrong with the comparison: coastal property capacity is tight, three admitted markets declined, and the two quotes that came back are both surplus lines. But a 38% increase is the kind of number a client remembers, and a broking practice wants a senior person to have looked at the marketing before the client sees it.

That is what the PREMIUM_JUMP control is for. This post follows it: how it fires, what the supervisor agent prepares for the practice leader, what the leader looks at, and what the client eventually reads. Every figure and carrier is illustrative.

Use case card

Actors	Practice leader (signs off), placement broker, account executive (owns the client conversation)
Trigger	The recommended or selected program costs more than 25% over the expiring
Lines	Commercial property, general liability, umbrella / excess
Agents involved	Supervisor agent, quote comparison analyst, proposal writer, placement compliance agent
Decisions	Practice-leader sign-off before the proposal goes out; the client's sign-off on the proposal
Outcome	A proposal that goes to the client after a senior review, with the marketing evidence attached
What is measured	Programs over +25%, sign-off turnaround, proposals sent within the 30-day mark

The Placement Workspace hero for an illustrative hospitality renewal at the proposal stage — **The workspace hero.** The Placement Workspace for an illustrative hotel group’s renewal: the stage strip at Proposal, 29 days to inception, readiness 100%, $470K expiring and $651K recommended (+38.5%).

Where the 38.5% comes from

Line	Expiring	Recommended	Change	Why this one
Commercial property	$317K	$490K	+54.5%	Meets the $83.7M limit and the A- floor; $27.6K more than the cheaper quote, without its added exclusion; keeps the $25K retention
General liability	$103K	$111K	+7.1%	Lowest total cost; no new exclusions; keeps the $10K retention
Umbrella / excess	$49.4K	$50K	+1.2%	Lowest total cost; no new exclusions (retention up from $10K to $20K, flagged)
Program	$470K	$651K	+38.5%

Illustrative figures from the demo book, rounded as the product shows them.

The increase is almost entirely property. The general liability loss ratio over five years is 72% of premium — another thing the leader will want to see — but the line itself moved only 7%.

How the control fires

flowchart LR A["Comparison:
program change"] --> B{"PREMIUM_JUMP
program change over 25%?"} B -- no --> C["Proposal proceeds"] B -- yes --> D["Refer: practice leader
reviews the marketing"] D --> E["Supervisor agent:
prepared sign-off,
the fact behind it"] E --> F{"Practice leader:
accept, reject, ask"} F -- accept --> G["Proposal to the client"] F -- reject or ask --> H["Back to the placement broker:
re-market, layer, or explain"] style D fill:#fff4e2,stroke:#f4a03a style F fill:#e8f8f4,stroke:#10b981,stroke-width:2px

The control is a sentence in the Rules Studio: when the recommended program cost against the expiring is more than 25%, refer to a practice leader. The supervisor agent runs the controls onto the decision record and prepares the sign-off — Practice leader sign-off: 1 control fired — with the control’s own message as the reason. It does not argue for or against; it puts the right decision in front of the right role.

What the practice leader looks at

Everything the leader needs is on the same page: the market ranking with each declination’s reason, the side-by-side per line, the loss runs, and the compliance zone showing the surplus lines log. The question they are answering is whether the property line was marketed widely enough to justify the price: five carriers in the plan, two quotes, three declinations — capacity committed in the region, coastal wind outside appetite, outside territory.

Loss runs, the SOV summary and the expiring program, on illustrative data — **The expiring program.** Five years of losses per line with the loss ratio, the SOV summary and the expiring program by line, carrier, limit, retention and premium (illustrative data).

Step by step

From a 38.5% recommendation to a proposal the client can sign Illustrative hospitality renewal; day numbers count down to the effective date.

Comparison completeEnginesDay 30

Three lines selected; program $651K against $470K, +38.5%.

Control firesPREMIUM_JUMPDay 30

Refer to a practice leader. The hit, with the rule’s version, goes on the decision record and onto the account’s insights on Home.

Sign-off preparedsupervisor_agentDay 30

“Practice leader sign-off: 1 control fired” with the one fact behind it.

Leader signs offPractice leaderDay 29

Accept, with a note on the property market. Reject sends it back to the broker with the reason.

Proposal finalisedproposal_agentDay 29

Version 1 final; the summary “written by the engines”: three lines for $650.88K, 38.5% against the expiring $470K.

Client conversationAccount executiveDay 29

The proposal goes with the marketing story. The client’s sign-off is recorded next — see proposal to bind.

The client proposal for an illustrative hotel group: $651K recommended against $470K expiring, line by line — **The proposal.** The client proposal (illustrative): $651K recommended against the $470K expiring (+38.5%), the summary written by the engines and the program line by line — final, and waiting on the client’s sign-off before the bind order.

What the agents prepared, and what each rests on

Agent	What it prepared	What it cites	Who decides
Supervisor	Practice leader sign-off: 1 control fired	`PREMIUM_JUMP` on the program change	Practice leader
Quote comparison	The selection per line, with reasons	Confirmed quotes and the expiring	Placement broker
Proposal writer	Finalise proposal version 1	The selected quotes and the comparison	Placement broker
Compliance	File the FL diligent-effort affidavit for property	Three admitted declinations	Compliance

The decision record for this placement

Section	Hit	Outcome
Control	`PREMIUM_JUMP`: recommended program +38.5% on the expiring	refer
Agent	Supervisor: practice leader sign-off prepared	refer
Agent	Compliance: diligent-effort affidavit (FL) prepared	refer
Person	Practice leader sign-off (when accepted), with the leader’s note	proceed

For the account team

The awkward conversation is prepared: the leader’s sign-off and the marketing evidence go into the client meeting with you.

For broker IT

The threshold is data, not code: a practice can set 20% or 30% in the Studio, test it against current placements and publish it as a new version.

For practice leaders

Every large increase has a named senior reviewer before the client sees it. That is an E&O control you can evidence, not just a habit.

Questions we get asked

Does the control stop the proposal?

It refers rather than blocks: the proposal is prepared, and the leader’s sign-off is the decision waiting on top of it.

Is 25% the right number?

It is the starter rule. Practices tune it per line or segment in the Rules Studio.

Keep reading

Use case

Surplus lines diligent effort, done before the bind

Three admitted declinations, each with its reason, and an affidavit to file.

October 29, 2026 · 14 min read Read article

Connected suite

Claims advocacy, company intelligence and policy checking in the renewal

The loss story from InsightAdvocate, the company from InsightPulse, the bound policy for InsightProofing.

October 29, 2026 · 10 min read Read article

A practice leader signs off before the proposal goes to the client