This audit measures whether your underwriting judgement, claims discretion, and risk reasoning remain yours or have been surrendered to AI model outputs. Your answers reveal how much actuarial instinct still guides decisions versus how much AI speed and automation now controls them.
Record the reasoning behind at least 10 percent of underwriting and claims decisions in writing before you check what the AI says. This creates a habit of independent thought and a compliance record.
When your AI system is retrained, require a senior underwriter or claims manager to validate that the new model still aligns with your fairness standards. Do not trust 'improved accuracy' without human verification of the cases it affects.
Create a monthly case discussion forum where underwriters and claims assessors present challenging decisions and explain why they chose to override or trust the AI. This keeps judgement active and catches model drift early.
For every AI tool your organisation adopts, define in writing what types of cases require human discretion and cannot be fully automated. This boundary is your cognitive sovereignty.
When regulators or customers ask why a specific case was declined, practice answering without mentioning the AI tool at all. If you cannot explain it in plain actuarial or claims language, you are too dependent on the system.