Validate reserve workbooks before actuarial review

Why use this

1. An actuarial reviewer may need to follow a reserve-workbook change through formulas, factors and historical supporting material. A cell that appears reasonable in isolation can be inconsistent with the triangle structure or the documented assumption history.

2. This job could prepare a cell-linked review brief that exposes discrepancies and unanswered questions. Keeping workbook diagnostics separate from actuarial conclusions helps the qualified reviewer decide what to investigate before approving any change.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Reconcile cell references, period definitions and factor provenance, distinguishing formula issues from judgment-dependent assumptions.

Simpler alternative

Use existing actuarial validation controls when the workbook and supporting records follow a stable standard.

Unsuitable when

The workflow would certify reserve adequacy, replace actuarial judgment or modify controlled workbooks without approval.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Reserve workbook copy

   Owner

   Authorized actuarial owner

   Minimum scope

   Relevant triangles, factors and formulas

   Quality check

   Preserve version, valuation date and protected cells

2. Name

   Supporting evidence

   Owner

   Qualified reviewer

   Minimum scope

   Approved historical filings/guidance and assumption notes

   Quality check

   Check applicable period and source authority

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Review fictional workbook schemas and evidence excerpts; no financial-data retrieval, calculation execution or workbook writes.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Current connector access, formula support, historical coverage and runtime compatibility are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. Confidential-data access/sharing, paid sources, workbook changes and formal actuarial submissions require appropriate authorization.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Actuarial-review candidate brief with cell pointers, formula/factor questions, source lineage and pending expert checks.

Critical checks

1. Align periods and triangle orientation; distinguish formulas from overrides; preserve factor-change rationale; make no adequacy conclusion.

Missing output evidence

This overlay adds no new output inspection, execution or validation; consult the referenced canonical source outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   A factor changes without an accompanying rationale

   Why it matters

   The model contains an unexplained assumption

   Proposed response

   Identify the cell and request authoritative support.

2. Signal

   A copied formula shifts a reference range

   Why it matters

   The result may include the wrong periods

   Proposed response

   Flag the reference difference for workbook review.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define workbook scope and review-evidence conventions.

Ongoing review

1. Qualified actuaries verify findings and authorize any controlled change.

Unknowns

1. Workbook complexity, source completeness, actuarial interpretation and review costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent a small triangle schema with an unexplained factor override and shifted formula reference; draft a cell-linked issue list.

Acceptance checks

1. Flag both issues; retain version/context; compute no reserves and give no actuarial sign-off.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if valuation context, evidence authority or workbook-change permission is unresolved.

Limits

1. A cell-referenced review plan cannot establish reserve adequacy, actuarial validity or correctness of a controlled workbook.