Home / Docs / The briefs / The Prohibitions Are The Exclusions: Your Own Demo Says No Policy Covers The Delta, And The Insurance Act Says How
The Prohibitions Are The Exclusions: Your Own Demo Says No Policy Covers The Delta, And The Insurance Act Says How
docs/briefs/v0.33.70__strategy-brief__the-prohibitions-are-the-exclusions-your-own-demo-says-no-policy-covers-the-delta-and-the-insurance-act-says-how.md, which is served unchanged. Anything rendered on this network stays one click from the file it came from.version v0.33.70 date 11 September 2026 from Human (project lead) to Whoever plans the ladder from the behaviour policy to everything above it, and whoever talks to an underwriter first
type Strategy brief (the sequence from behaviour policy to twin to risk to standards to the thing at the top of the ladder, with the legal mechanism that makes the sequence forced)
Third of 11 September. The corpus was searched first and the estate's own published demonstration turned out to contain the sentence this brief is built on. The outside search established who actually underwrites autonomous agents as of this week, what they require from the insured, and the statutory mechanism in this jurisdiction by which a written statement of what an agent may do becomes something an insurer can rely on. The word that names the top of the ladder appears in this document because it describes other companies' products and because this document carries no price, per the ruling of 8 September. It may not appear on any page that does. Limitations: no policy wording from any of the named insurers was available, so what they require is drawn from their published standards, blogs and announcements rather than from contracts; the standards mapping is framed and not built; and the legal analysis is research rather than advice.
What This Is
The argument that the sequence the memo describes is forced rather than chosen, and the mechanism that forces it: the memo states that the risk product is ultimately about making agents insurable because they comply and their behaviour is understood, that the insurance workflow and the insurance model and the insurers are not there yet, that the behaviour policy is therefore where to start because it drives the behaviour and can be sold today without depending on anybody else, that once it exists the digital twin is integrated as the interface where the business touches the thing, that from the twin the reality of existing tools is mapped, that risks to the business are then connected through the risk acceptance workflow and accountability, that the policy is mapped to standards to say which parts are met and which are not and, more interestingly, what would need to be put in place to meet them, which is where business cases come from, that the policy comes with the twin and the policy is the licence to operate, and that the whole of the risk product sits on top of this as both a long term vision and a way to make revenue next week; the first finding is that the estate's own published demonstration already states the relationship that makes the order forced, because it defines the mandate as the only thing the policy insures and the delta as the set no policy covers, which means the prohibitions the behaviour policy enumerates are, precisely, the exclusion schedule of any instrument that later sits on top of it; the second is that the insurers who underwrite agents at all are asking for this document already, with one requiring a scoping statement of capabilities, autonomy, data access, callable tools and deployment context tied directly to its terms, another writing in January 2026 that system level behaviour is often left undefined and that insurability requires clarity on what systems are permitted to do, and a broker in May 2026 asking for a mapping of where systems can act without prior business approval; the third is that the statute in this jurisdiction gives a written statement of authorised scope three possible legal shapes, as a representation subject to the duty of fair presentation, as a term defining the risk so that an action outside it falls outside the cover with no causation defence, or as a warranty whose breach suspends cover until remedied, and the estate's demonstration already reads as the second; the fourth is that agents currently fail the standard preconditions for an insurable risk on assessability, on fortuity and on independence, and a written behaviour policy with monitoring repairs the first two and does nothing for the third; and the fifth is that the standards mapping the memo wants has a licence constraint and a verdict constraint, so its output is a record of what a provision requires and what a control would bound, never a statement that anybody is in compliance. New contributions: the identification of the prohibitions as the exclusion schedule; the market survey with the three insurers who underwrite agent action by name; the three legal shapes and which one the estate already uses; the insurability preconditions with what the behaviour policy contributes to each; the honest form of the standards mapping output; and, added after the project lead's comments, the label, patient and prescription structure that places the score and separates the seller from the signer.
The Sentence Is Already On Your Site
The published licence to operate demonstration defines three sets:
Read the second and third together and the relationship between the behaviour policy and everything above it is settled. The instrument at the top of the ladder covers the mandate. It covers nothing in the delta. The behaviour policy's prohibitions are the enumerated delta. So the prohibitions are the exclusions. Not a precursor to them, not an input to drafting them. The same list, in a different document.
That is why the sequence is forced. An underwriter cannot write an exclusion schedule for something that has never been enumerated. Without a written statement of what the agent may do, there is nothing to say a loss fell outside, and an instrument that cannot say that cannot be priced. The memo's ordering, behaviour policy first because the insurance apparatus is not ready, is right for a reason stronger than readiness: the behaviour policy is the underwriting artefact, and the apparatus cannot become ready without it.
And the estate's conformance vault already produces the shape. It generates a policy object whose conditions become exclusions because the attestations behind them expire, with a field stating what the object does not prove: that any control is in place. It proves what was attested, at what tier, and when it expires. That is an exclusion schedule with a clock on every line, and it is built and tested.
Who Underwrites Agents, As Of This Week
The memo says the insurers are not there yet. Three are, narrowly, and the rest are either insuring something else or excluding.
| Who | Since | What is covered | Agents by name |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Lloyd's backed underwriter tied to a published standard | July 2025, first agent policy 11 February 2026 | Liability for agent failures, with terms tied directly to audit results; reported limits of fifty million dollars per policyholder | Yes, the only one built around autonomous agents |
| A Lloyd's coverholder with a coordinated structure | Affirmative cover April 2025, coordinated structure 10 February 2026 | Underperformance, failure to perform as intended, hallucination, and since February a structure with predefined allocation rules that sends agent actions where no cyber incident occurs to the AI policy; standalone limit raised to twenty five million dollars in January 2026 | Yes, by allocation |
| A guarantee backed startup | Seed of five and a half million, 22 July 2026 | Performance warranties for agents: wrongful commitments, unauthorised autonomous actions, prompt injection, in bounded business use cases; excludes vehicles, robotics and physical safety | Yes, by design |
| A reinsurer's performance guarantee | 2018 | Backs a vendor's warranty on model performance against defined metrics and thresholds | No, model output |
| A syndicate with the same reinsurer | 27 February 2026 | Financial loss from defined performance failures, settled on measurable data; excludes uptime, cyber, breaches and negligent deployment | No, model output |
| A coverholder for generative output liability | 21 January 2026 | Six insuring agreements for false or misleading output, built to fill a general liability exclusion; capacity of just over nine million per insured | No, output not action |
| A cyber carrier with affirmative wording | 2024, base form 9 April 2025 | Agent originated losses covered where they produce a cyber covered loss | Only inside cyber |
The other direction is louder. The standard form body whose forms underpin most of the American property and casualty market published exclusions effective 1 January 2026 for bodily injury, property damage and personal injury arising out of generative artificial intelligence. One carrier filed an absolute exclusion in May 2025 covering any use, deployment or development, chatbot representations, and inadequate AI policies or training. Several large carriers have had exclusion filings approved. The admitted market is excluding and the specialty market is affirming, and the honest summary from the trade press in August 2026 is that most cyber insurers are clarifying wording rather than adding exclusions, with exclusions under discussion for systemic single model events and for liability when agents make autonomous decisions as designed, which may be classified as non cyber.
Read that last clause carefully, because it is the whole product. An agent doing exactly what it was permitted to do, and causing a loss, is the case the market does not know how to classify. A behaviour policy is the document that says whether the action was permitted. It is the classification.
What They Ask The Insured For
The underwriter tied to a standard publishes its scoping requirements, quoted in the first brief of today: capabilities and autonomy level, data access permissions and which tools it can call, deployment context, and a statement of applicability. Its April 2026 update mandates permission ready architecture such as just in time permissions, verifiable agent identities, and tool authorisation and logging extended to protocol servers. Terms are tied directly to audit results.
The coverholder wrote its position down on 14 January 2026. Underwriting asks where systems are deployed, who owns them and what they are doing in production. Performance thresholds, bias tolerance and system level behaviour are often left undefined. Governance that looks robust on paper but fails under real world pressure is inadequate. Systems must be tested, monitored and governed over time rather than certified at a single point. And insurability requires clarity on what systems are permitted to do.
The reinsurer's own paper on the subject says the developer should define the model input space clearly, that clear guardrails must be set for the use cases, that what counts as false, hallucinated or harmful will need to be very clearly defined, and that the trigger is damage plus underperformance against defined metrics and thresholds.
A large broker's agenda for 2026, dated 7 May, says underwriters expect clear evidence of governance, documented testing, human review for high stakes outputs, and a mapping of where AI systems can act without prior business approval, noting that agent behaviour and risk can change without a clearly defined deployment event.
And a June 2026 paper on insuring agentic systems proposes that underwriting track what authority has been delegated, what controls govern operation, what approvals are required before execution, and which external systems, assets or processes the agent is permitted to modify, with tiered autonomy pricing and scheduled systems with declared permitted functions.
Every one of those is a description of the behaviour policy. The scoping statement is the grant and the environment. What is permitted to do is the mandate. The mapping of where it can act without approval is the delta. The declared permitted functions are the schedule. Nobody yet publishes policy wording making such a document a condition of cover, and that is the layer no insurer publishes about anything. But it is on the intake form of the only agent specific underwriter, in the blog of the largest coverholder, and in the paper of the largest reinsurer.
The Three Legal Shapes, And The One The Estate Already Uses
In this jurisdiction the statute is the Insurance Act 2015, and a written statement of what the insured undertakes can take three shapes under it. The distinction is not academic: it decides what happens when the agent acts outside the statement.
A representation, under the duty of fair presentation. Sections 3 to 7 require the insured to disclose every material circumstance it knows or ought to know, in a manner reasonably clear and accessible, with representations of fact substantially correct. Section 9 abolishes basis of contract clauses: a statement in a proposal form cannot be converted into a warranty by declaring it the basis of the contract, and section 16 says that cannot be contracted out of. So a behaviour policy attached to a proposal is a representation, and its remedies are the proportionate ones of schedule 1, not avoidance, unless the breach was deliberate or reckless.
A term defining the risk as a whole. The explanatory notes give the example of a requirement that a property not be used commercially: an action outside such a term simply falls outside the insured risk. Section 11, which protects the insured where non compliance could not have increased the risk of the loss that actually occurred, does not apply to risk defining terms. No causation defence is available. This is the shape the estate's demonstration already reads as: the mandate is the only thing the policy insures, and the delta is what no policy covers. That is a definition of the risk, not a condition on it.
A warranty. Section 10 abolished the old rule that breach discharges the insurer entirely and replaced it with suspension: the insurer has no liability for any loss occurring after a warranty has been breached but before the breach is remedied, and liability resumes when the insured ceases to be in breach or the risk becomes essentially the same as originally contemplated. Section 11 does apply here, so a breached control warranty irrelevant to the loss that occurred cannot be relied on. Sections 16 and 17 require any term more disadvantageous than the statutory default to be drawn to the insured's attention and to be clear and unambiguous as to its effect.
The strongest position for an instrument built on the behaviour policy, and it is the one to design toward: the mandate as a risk defining term, so that an action in the delta is outside the cover with no causation argument, plus the monitoring and approval controls as warranties, so that switching them off suspends cover until they are switched back on, with the whole document also serving as the fair presentation at placement. Three shapes, one document, and the estate's demonstration already has the first.
On the memo's phrase. The memo says the policy is the licence to operate. In statutory language the written undertaking is a promissory warranty only if the instrument makes it one, a representation if it sits in a proposal, and a risk definition if it is drafted as scope. The phrase licence to operate is a good name for the artefact and it is not a term of art, and the first brief of today proposes it as the referent that closes the collision. It should not be used as if it had a statutory meaning, because it does not.
Why Agents Are Not Insurable Yet, And What The Behaviour Policy Repairs
The standard preconditions, from the actuarial literature as applied to this problem in October 2025 and again in June 2026: fortuity, assessability of probability and severity, independence of losses, bounded maximum loss, economic feasibility, and absence of moral hazard.
| Precondition | Where agents fail today, per the sources | What a behaviour policy with monitoring contributes |
|---|---|---|
| Assessability | The market body says the error rate in each context is unknown and there is a lack of data; the actuarial view is that historical data is scarce | The authorised action set plus the prohibitions is the input space the reinsurer requires and the capabilities the underwriter scopes, and it turns what the agent may do into a countable exposure base |
| Fortuity | A June 2026 paper argues that architectural risks are conditional on configuration rather than purely random, so they are a risk selection matter before they are a priced peril | Out of scope actions become identifiable events rather than diffuse behaviour, and the document makes the line between as designed and malfunction explicit, which is the exact line the market cannot currently draw |
| Bounded loss | Autonomous action with no ceiling | Prohibitions on irreversible actions and per action value ceilings cap severity per event, which is what the demonstration's per action ceiling already is |
| Moral hazard | The actuarial view is that insurers face difficulty verifying risk controls; the reinsurer says due diligence requires cooperation and transparency | Monitoring telemetry against the written prohibitions supplies the audit trail, the tool traces and the scope creep detection the brokers and the standard name, and answers the coverholder's objection to certification at a single point |
| Independence | Every market body flags foundation model concentration as defeating the law of large numbers | Nothing. A behaviour policy does not make two customers' agents fail independently when they share a model. This is the precondition the product cannot touch |
Four of five, then, and the honest statement is that the fifth is the one that decides whether the top of the ladder ever exists at scale. That is an argument for the memo's own long term framing: the behaviour policy makes an individual agent assessable and its losses bounded, and the systemic question is somebody else's.
The Standards Mapping, In Its Honest Form
The memo's most commercially interesting sentence:
Two constraints stand between that sentence and a product, and both are already ruled.
The licence constraint. The international management standards prohibit adaptation, translation and commercial exploitation, and now prohibit language model use of their content. A mapping derived from their text cannot be shipped. The European regulation is expressly reusable for commercial purposes including adaptation, its graph exists at over fifteen hundred nodes with amendments applied, and the conformance vault already resolves sixty two of its crosswalks to that regulation. And the standards graph the memo would otherwise build already exists under another name and belongs to somebody else, per the 10 September brief on joining rather than building.
The verdict constraint. Nothing in this estate claims to be a compliance assessment, and the ruling is that presenting it as one would be dishonest. So the output cannot say then you are in compliance.
The honest form is better than the sentence it replaces, because it is checkable:
That is a business case with no verdict in it. It names the provision, the gap and the remedy, and every clause of it can be checked by the buyer against the provision, the grant and the control. It is also the exact output of the enforcement attribute specified in the second brief of today: a prohibition enforced only at the prompt layer is a gap, and the control that would move it to the gateway layer is the remedy. The standards mapping and the enforcement mapping are the same computation read from two ends.
The Label, The Patient, The Prescription
Added after the project lead's comments of 11 September. It is the ladder's own description, in a structure everybody already understands, and it says where the score lives.
A label describes the substance and never says this is safe for you. A patient record supplies the context. A prescribing decision combines the two, and a named professional signs it and carries the responsibility.
| Part | In this estate | Property |
|---|---|---|
| The label | The ABP | Describes capability, context free, no score |
| The patient record | The twin, hooked to the customer's real environment | Supplies the assets, the tools, the data, what is connected |
| The prescription | The risk score and the acceptance, on the risk product | Combines the two, dated, signed by a named professional |
Three things follow.
The score lives on the third row and nowhere else. The ABP is consequence agnostic: the same document is dangerous in one deployment and harmless in another, so a score on it is wrong in one of the two rooms. The risk product knows the assets, so it can score. That is not a product preference, it is where the information is.
The prescriber cannot be the seller. The standing rule is that the people who sell do not sign. So whoever sells the label and the record cannot sign the prescription. The project lead's sequencing, first product then uplift with more senior professionals, is that rule made commercial.
The underwriter is a second prescriber. An underwriter combines a description with its own consequence model and prices the result. A consequence agnostic ABP is the one shape an insurer can use without arguing with it, which is the whole of the earlier section on what underwriters ask for, seen from the other side.
And the business case has no verdict in it. A gap with a control is not a gap. A gap without one is the case for buying something. On the barrier glyphs that is mechanical: move this capability from a rule somebody wrote down to a boundary enforced above it that it cannot reach, and here is the control that does it. Provision, gap, control, layer. The number that moves is unbounded excess, and it is the only number on the label a buyer can change.
One dependency the sequencing rests on. The twin's running state is an open question in this brief. The label and the record are the first product only if the record can be hooked. Otherwise the label is the first product and the record is the second.
The Ladder, With The Word At The Top Named Once
| Rung | What it is | State |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | The behaviour policy: grant, mandate, delta, prohibitions with their enforcement layer | Sellable next week as tiers one and three |
| 1 | The twin: the interface where the business touches the agent, receiving the signed mandate | Published on the twins site as architecture; built state unverified |
| 2 | Reality mapped: which tools exist, which controls are in place, which prohibitions are enforced where | Tier four |
| 3 | Risks connected: the risk acceptance workflow with accepted until dates on every unenforced prohibition | The risks site and the acceptance workflow exist |
| 4 | Standards mapped, in the honest form | Framed here; the crosswalks exist for one instrument |
| 5 | Insurance, meaning somebody else's instrument that covers the mandate and excludes the delta | Three underwriters exist; none publishes wording; the estate's demonstration simulates it with fabricated numbers and says so |
The word appears in that table because this document carries no price and describes other companies' products. The ladder ruling of 3 September puts it at rung three and forbids calling rungs zero to two by it. The behaviour policy is rung zero, and no page selling it may use the word.
One correction to the memo's framing of the top rung. The memo says the risk product is about selling insurance policies. The estate does not sell them and should not, because effecting or carrying out a contract of insurance as principal is a regulated activity and the perimeter analysis of 10 September applies. What the estate sells is the artefact an underwriter needs, and the monitoring that keeps it true. The underwriter sells the policy. That is a better business, and it is the one the demonstration already describes.
What This Does Not Try To Be
- Legal advice. The three shapes are drawn from the statute and its explanatory notes. Which shape any real instrument takes is for the underwriter's lawyers.
- A claim that any insurer requires the behaviour policy as a condition of cover. None publishes wording. The claim is that it is on the intake form of one, in the blog of another and in the paper of a third.
- A standards mapping. The form of the output is specified. No mapping is built, and the licence constraint decides which instrument it could be built against.
- A product on any rung above zero. Rungs one to four are the estate's existing work placed in order. Rung five is somebody else's.
- A page. The word at the top of the ladder appears here and may not appear on any page carrying a price.
Honest Tensions
| Tension | Note |
|---|---|
| The prohibitions as the exclusions | It makes the ladder forced and it means the behaviour policy is, from the first day, a document about what will not be covered |
| Three underwriters exist | The memo's premise that nobody is there yet is slightly wrong, and slightly wrong in a way that helps |
| The risk defining term shape | It is the strongest position and it gives the insured no causation defence, which a buyer will notice |
| Independence | The product repairs four preconditions and the fifth is the one that decides scale |
| The honest standards output | It is checkable and it is a worse sentence to say at a table than then you are in compliance |
| Not selling the policy | It keeps the estate outside the perimeter and it hands the largest revenue line on the ladder to somebody else |
Open Questions
- Has anybody asked an underwriter? The three who write agent cover are named. None has been contacted, and the whole ladder rests on what they would accept.
- Is the twin built or described? The twins site publishes the execution broker. Its running state was not checked.
- Which instrument is the standards mapping built against first? The licence constraint says the European regulation. The buyer will ask for the management standard, which cannot be used.
- What is the accepted until date on a prohibition enforced only at the prompt layer? The risk acceptance workflow needs one, and the honest answer may be that it should not be accepted at all.
- Does the demonstration's per action ceiling map onto the bounded loss precondition directly? It looks like it does, and nobody has said so on the page.
- Who owns the systemic question? Independence cannot be repaired per customer, and the market bodies all name it. It is not this product's problem, and somebody should say whose it is.
- Can the conformance vault's exclusion object be the schedule an underwriter reads? It has the right fields and the right disclaimer. Whether its format is one any underwriter would accept is unknown.
Relationship To Previous Briefs
From the licence to operate demonstration, it takes the definition that makes the whole argument, and it finds that the demonstration already reads as a risk defining term.
From the conformance vault, it takes the exclusion object with expiring attestations, which is the schedule with a clock.
From the first brief of today, it takes the four objects and the insurer's scoping requirements, and it places the behaviour policy at rung zero.
From the second brief of today, it takes the enforcement attribute and finds that the standards mapping is the same computation read from the other end.
From the ladder ruling of 3 September and the perimeter analysis of 10 September, it takes the rule about the word and the rule about not selling the instrument.
From the standards brief of 10 September, it takes the licence matrix and the finding that the standards graph already exists elsewhere.
From the risks site, it takes the rule that a risk cannot be denied but only accepted for a stated period, and applies it to every prohibition that is not enforced.
From the teaching brief of 10 September, it takes the sub delegation argument, which is the case of an action inside the grant and outside every mandate the buyer was ever given.
Key Claims
| # | Claim |
|---|---|
| 1 | The estate's own demonstration defines the mandate as the only thing the policy insures and the delta as what no policy covers |
| 2 | So the behaviour policy's prohibitions are the exclusion schedule, and the ladder is forced rather than chosen |
| 3 | The behaviour policy is the underwriting artefact, and the apparatus above it cannot become ready without it |
| 4 | Three underwriters write agent action cover by name as of this week, one tied to a published standard with terms set by audit results |
| 5 | The ABP is the label, the twin is the patient record and the risk score is the prescription, so the score lives on the risk product and the prescriber cannot be the seller |
| 6 | A behaviour policy is the document that says whether the action was permitted, so it is the classification the market lacks |
| 7 | Every published underwriting requirement found describes the behaviour policy: scoping, what is permitted to do, where it can act without approval, declared permitted functions |
| 8 | The statute gives the written undertaking three shapes, and the demonstration already reads as a risk defining term, which gives the insured no causation defence |
| 9 | The strongest design is mandate as risk definition plus controls as warranties whose breach suspends cover under section 10 |
| 10 | Agents fail assessability, fortuity and independence today, and the behaviour policy repairs the first two and cannot touch the third |
| 11 | The standards mapping cannot use the management standards and cannot say in compliance, so its output is provision, gap and control at a layer |
| 12 | The estate does not sell the instrument at the top of the ladder, because that is a regulated activity, and it sells the artefact the underwriter needs |
Sources
All read 11 September 2026.
Inside the estate. The licence to operate demonstration at https://sgit.ai/demos/vaults/licence-to-operate/index.html. The conformance vault at https://sgit.ai/demos/vaults/aiuc-1-conformance/index.html. The twins site at https://twins.sgit.ai/llms.txt. The risks site thesis from the network index at https://sgit.ai/network/index.html. The 10 September briefs on the policy document, the standards graph, the perimeter, and the ladder ruling of 3 September.
Who underwrites agents. The standard tied underwriter's launch at https://www.reinsurancene.ws/artificial-intelligence-underwriting-company-launches-with-15m-seed-round/, 23 July 2025, its first agent policy at https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/elevenlabs-secures-first-of-its-kind-ai-agent-insurance-302684587.html, 11 February 2026, and the reported limit at https://www.fastcompany.com/91550776/rajiv-dattani-is-bringing-insurance-to-the-ai-agent-boom, 18 June 2026. The coverholder's affirmative cover at https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/armilla-launches-affirmative-ai-liability-insurance-with-lloyds-underwriter-chaucer-302442586.html, 30 April 2025, and the coordinated structure at https://www.chaucergroup.com/news/press-release-chaucer-and-armilla-ai-launch-vanguard-ai-coordinated-insurance-structure, 10 February 2026. The guarantee backed startup at https://www.klaimee.ai/ and https://fintech.global/2026/07/22/klaimee-lands-5-5m-to-insure-autonomous-ai-agents/, 22 July 2026. The reinsurer's product at https://www.munichre.com/en/solutions/for-industry-clients/insure-ai.html and its paper at https://www.munichre.com/content/dam/munichre/contentlounge/website-pieces/documents/MR_AI-Whitepaper-Insuring-Generative-AI.pdf. The syndicate product at https://www.reinsurancene.ws/mosaic-and-munich-re-introduce-ai-specific-insurance-for-developers/, 27 February 2026. The output liability coverholder at https://www.testudo.co/insights/testudo-launches-new-insurance-coverage-for-liability-risks-created-by-generative-ai-systems, 21 January 2026. The cyber carrier at https://www.coalitioninc.com/ai-coverage. The market summary at https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2026/08/27/883064.htm, 27 August 2026. The exclusion forms at https://www.independentagent.com/vu_resource/verisk-to-roll-out-new-general-liability-exclusions-for-generative-ai-exposures/ and the absolute exclusion at https://www.hunton.com/hunton-insurance-recovery-blog/the-continued-proliferation-of-ai-exclusions, 28 May 2025.
What underwriters require. The scoping page at https://www.aiuc-1.com/scoping and the update at https://www.aiuc-1.com/research/2026-q2-standard-update, 15 April 2026. The coverholder's position at https://www.armilla.ai/resources/from-paper-policies-to-real-oversight-how-ai-governance-is-becoming-insurable, 14 January 2026. The broker's agenda at https://www.aon.com/en/insights/articles/ai-risk-2026-practical-agenda, 7 May 2026. The market body's survey at https://lmalloyds.com/campaigns/understanding-ai-exposures-ai-loss-scenarios-survey-results/. The June 2026 paper at https://arxiv.org/html/2606.05449v1.
The statute. Sections 3 to 11 and 16 to 17 of the Insurance Act 2015 at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/4, with the explanatory notes to sections 9, 10 and 11. Section 33 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw7/6/41/section/33. The suspensive warranty decision summarised at https://insure.cooley.com/2018/01/10/high-court-rules-on-the-application-of-suspensive-warranty-provisions-in-insurance-contracts/.
Insurability. The actuarial application at https://www.theactuarymagazine.org/insights-ai-insurability/, October 2025. The frontier paper at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.18784, 12 June 2026. The market body on unknown error rates at https://lmalloyds.com/understanding-artificial-intelligence-risk-in-insurance-products-the-challenges/, 13 April 2025. The market's written evidence at https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/140107/pdf/, April 2025.
This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).