Insurance Fact-Find Completeness for Broker Quote Work

Update note

Published with a clear distinction between factual sources, provisional working notes and broker judgement.

Why this matters

Insurance information changes through renewals, endorsements, changes in circumstances and client conversations. NIBA's public explanation of broker work highlights the continuing relationship around policy renewal and adjustment, which is why a prior record can be useful but cannot automatically be treated as current. A fact-find view should help a team distinguish a client statement from policy wording, a document from an interpretation, and a known answer from a sensible question. That distinction also reduces repeated requests: a broker can ask for a specific source or confirmation instead of sending a broad request for everything again.

Key points to carry into the work

Treat a fact as a dated statement with a source, not as a value that becomes true because it was copied into a form.
Mark an assumption as an assumption, even when it is being used to prepare an internal checklist or a follow-up question.
Use the case purpose to decide which information is relevant, rather than creating one generic form for every policy situation.
Keep the gap visible until someone records how it was resolved or why it no longer matters to the current work.

The four states of a fact-find

01Source supplied
02Fact extracted
03Assumption labelled
04Gap assigned
05Broker review

Run a fact-find completeness review

Start with the requested outcomeDescribe the task in factual terms: prepare a renewal discussion, collect information for a quote request or confirm a document set. The task should not predetermine which insurer, product or option is appropriate.

Create four evidence columnsFor each material item, record supplied source, extracted fact, working assumption and open question. This prevents a note or a guessed value from being mistaken for an answer from the client or the policy document.

Check the current versionAsk whether the schedule, renewal notice or correspondence is current for the case. When an older document is retained for context, label it as history and keep the current source beside it.

Ask the smallest useful questionWhere information is missing, request the specific document, date or confirmation that will resolve it. A focused request is easier for the client to understand and for the broker team to close out.

Review readiness with a personUse the organised fact-find to support broker review. A case may be ready for one preparation step and still not be ready for another; avoid a single status that hides those different decisions.

Where Insia fits

Quote Desk's private-pilot story centres on complete, source-aware quote cases and visible gaps before broker review. Insia Intelligence can prepare factual context and missing-information prompts for review, while the broker remains responsible for deciding what is relevant and what should happen next.

Keep the boundary clear. Insia does not determine that a fact-find is legally, commercially or professionally sufficient. It does not infer client circumstances, provide advice, select a market or use an incomplete case to trigger insurer action.

Checklist

Does every material value show where it came from and when it was current?
Can a reviewer tell an extracted fact from a working assumption?
Are old policy versions clearly labelled as history?
Does each missing item have a focused request and owner?
Has a broker decided whether the case is ready for its next stage?

Sources and scope

Sources support the external context in this guide. Current product capability and availability are explained on the linked Insia product page.

Common questions

Does complete mean every field is mandatory?

No. What matters depends on the purpose of the case. A practical review identifies which facts are material for the work and makes any uncertainty explicit.

Can a previous policy schedule be reused?

It can provide context, but it should be dated and checked against the current insurance moment. A prior schedule should not quietly stand in for a current source.

What is the difference between an assumption and a gap?

An assumption is a provisional working note that needs to stay labelled. A gap is information that is not available or not confirmed. Neither should be presented as a verified policy fact.

Can Insia Intelligence fill missing information?

It can prepare source-backed context or a question for human review. It does not create a verified fact, decide that a gap is immaterial or provide insurance advice.

Why make the source visible beside a field?

The source lets a reviewer check date, wording and scope before relying on the field, especially when the case has moved between people or stages.

Put the context to work

Turn this evidence task into a visible case.

Discuss how the evidence, requirements and human decisions in this guide could become a reviewable Compliance Case Manager workflow. This starts a product conversation and does not guarantee pilot access.

Discuss Compliance Case Manager