Policy wording comparison, clause by clause — every change to coverage explained before you bind
Every deviation from your form found in minutes, none bound without an approver.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Software that compares a broker or manuscript wording with your standard form and shows every difference. Policy Wording Comparison goes further than a text compare: it aligns clauses by meaning even when renumbered or moved, says in plain words what each change does to coverage, rates it wider, narrower or neutral, and routes material changes to the right approver.
How to choose AI solutions for insurance →
Updated
Specialty, E&S and London market risks bind on the broker’s wording, not yours. A manuscript runs to 38 pages against a 34-page standard form, and the differences that matter are a handful of clauses scattered through it — a definition widened by one phrase, an exclusion that is simply not there, a notice condition moved to another section.
So the wordings specialist reads both documents side by side. A word-processor compare does not help much: brokers renumber and move clauses, and the blackline floods with false differences. The blackline also says only what text changed — not what the change does to the cover, whether it breaks a guideline, or who has the authority to accept it. Two missing words in a war exclusion look like nothing on the page and decide who pays for the next state-backed attack.
Our estimate for one 38-page manuscript wording, in hours, by eye and with the solution. The first three rows are the 3–4 hour compare; the last two come after it. Hours with the solution include the specialist’s own review.
Six specialist agents align, redline and explain every clause; the wordings specialist decides and signs.
Halvorsen Freight Systems, a trucking and freight-brokerage platform, needs a $10M primary cyber layer. Ashgrove Specialty leads it for 60%, binding on Friday 30 October. The wholesale broker sends its own manuscript wording instead of Ashgrove’s form. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Imogen opens Wordings in: nine broker and manuscript wordings across cyber, D&O, marine cargo, energy, construction, product recall and excess casualty. Top of the list is Halvorsen Freight Systems — CB CyberShield 2026 from Calloway Brandt, binding Fri 30 Oct, in 3 days, with 13 differences and 6 that need an approver.
Each wording is compared with its standard form the moment it arrives.
The wording reader splits CB CyberShield 2026 into 63 clauses and 2 endorsements over 38 pages, and ASC-CY 04/26 into 62 clauses over 34 pages, keeping page and line for each. The clause aligner pairs 61 of them by meaning, not by number — 14 renumbered, 3 moved — and finds 1 clause missing and 2 new. Every step shows in the run log as it runs.
Run on this wording: 3 min 40 s, from the first page read to the last replacement clause offered.
The compare puts the broker’s text beside Ashgrove’s form, clause by clause: 51 same, 10 changed, 1 missing, 2 new. Identical clauses fold into bands like “5 same clauses · word for word”, so the eye lands on the differences. In clause 4.3, War, cyber war and cyber operation, the redline shows two words struck through: “or indirectly”.
“Widens coverage for state-backed attacks.”
Switched to Margin notes, the broker’s wording reads as one document with a note pinned beside every change. For 4.3: “Malware that spreads from the state’s real target to Halvorsen’s systems — how most spill-over losses arise — is no longer excluded.” The note cites your form on page 17 and the broker’s on page 21, and adds the accumulation: 1,284 cyber policies in the book carry the full wording; this would be the first without it.
The coverage effect writer describes. It never says a change is acceptable — people decide.
Clause 1.14, Computer system, gains 13 words: “or any system operated for the insured by a service provider”. The note explains the effect — a service provider’s outage now pays as business interruption at the full $10M limit, not under the $2.5M dependent sublimit in clause 2.4 — and that Halvorsen runs dispatch and load matching on two hosted platforms. The ransom payment clause, renumbered and moved, is matched anyway and rated neutral.
The authority checker tests all 13 differences against wording guidelines v2026.3. Six are material. War and infrastructure go to Delphine Okoro, Head of Cyber; computer system, notice of claim and betterment to Tomas Reyna, cyber class underwriter; sanctions to Rafael Mendel, legal counsel. Beside each one: the rule that routed it, such as WG-04, “Approved clause ASC-W 03 only. Any change, however small → Head of Cyber”.
“The authority checker routes; it never approves. Seven other differences are within the guidelines and need no approver.”
Each approver sees the clause, the redline and the note. Tomas approves the $2.5M dependent sublimit on 1.14, a counter at 60 days on 5.2 and a $250,000 betterment sublimit on 3.6. Rafael approves replacing the broker’s sanctions text with ASC-S 01. Delphine declines both of her deviations: reinstate “or indirectly” in 4.3 and the infrastructure exclusion in 4.9. Every approval carries a name and a time.
The clause suggester drafts the reply to Calloway Brandt from the approved library: 4 replacement clauses redlined against the broker’s text, 2 changes accepted with a condition, 5 accepted as written, and 2 courtesy flags. The flags are narrower changes that hurt Halvorsen, not Ashgrove — about 340 seasonal and agency drivers who would fall outside “insured person”, and bills of lading kept on paper at 14 depots that could no longer be re-keyed under data restoration.
Replacement clauses come only from the approved library; anything drafted is marked “needs legal”.
Five checks have passed: all 13 differences answered, 6 of 6 material changes approved, replacement clauses from the approved library, cover note matching the schedule, bind date before inception. Imogen signs the wording decision — CB CyberShield 2026 accepted with 4 replacement clauses and 2 conditions — and the counter goes to Oliver Penhale at Calloway Brandt. The broker accepts, and the wording is agreed 3 days before inception.
A wording decision is never signed with an open material change.
The certainty screen tracks wordings agreed and signed before inception, by month: 71% in May, 78% in June and 84% in July, when they were checked by eye; 93% in August, when comparison went live, and 97% in September. A look-back re-read this year’s bound cyber wordings and found the infrastructure exclusion absent in three; two have no approval on file, ready to send to Delphine.
The same cyber wording, seen by the five people who carry it — what reading a broker’s manuscript used to mean for their day, and what it means now.
Six specialist agents align, redline and explain every clause; the wordings specialist decides and signs.
Splits each wording into schedule, definitions, insuring clauses, exclusions, conditions and endorsements, keeping page and line for every clause.
Pairs every broker clause with its counterpart in the standard form by meaning, even when renumbered or moved, marks each same, changed, missing or new, and produces a word-level redline.
Writes the plain-words note on what each change does to coverage, says who gains and in what situation, and rates it wider, narrower or neutral for the insured.
Tests each difference against the wording guidelines in force and the authority matrix, and routes material ones to the named approver.
For each material change proposes reinstating the approved clause, accepting with a condition or countering at the guideline limit, and drafts the cover note to the broker.
Watches market clause updates every morning and re-checks open wordings that still use an earlier version.
Decides and signs; approvers sign their changes. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Anyone on the placement can ask what a change does to coverage, who approves it, or where it was accepted before — or tell it what to counter. Every answer cites the clause and the guideline.
What does deleting “or indirectly” do to the war exclusion?
It narrows the exclusion, so it widens coverage for state-backed attacks. Your form excludes loss “directly or indirectly” arising from a state cyber operation; the broker’s text excludes only loss arising “directly”. Malware that spreads from the state’s real target to Halvorsen’s systems would then be covered. Guideline WG-04 sends any change to this clause to Delphine Okoro.
Which of these can Tomas approve himself?
Three: 1.14 Computer system with the $2.5M dependent sublimit (WG-07), 5.2 Notice of claim countered at 60 days (WG-11) and 3.6 Betterment with a $250,000 sublimit (WG-12). The war and infrastructure changes are Delphine Okoro’s and the sanctions clause is Rafael Mendel’s.
Have we bound other cyber wordings without the infrastructure exclusion?
Yes — the look-back found three this year, all bound before this solution went live: Ebberly Foods (1 Feb), Corvin Ortho Labs (15 Apr) and Winnow Street Media (1 Jun). Winnow’s was put right at renewal; the other two have no approval on file. Guideline WG-05 requires the exclusion on every cyber wording.
Counter the notice clause at 60 days
Done. The counter keeps the broker’s fixed period but at the guideline limit — 60 days — and starts it when the risk manager or the CISO first becomes aware. Against the broker’s text it changes 90 to 60 and adds the risk manager. Tomas Reyna approves it under WG-11. It is in the counter-wording now.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
What counts as material, who approves it and the clocks the team works to are settings, changed in plain words.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Pair clauses by meaning, not by number | On | On · Off |
| Alignment confidence below which a person checks the pair | 0.85 | 0.80 · 0.85 · 0.90 |
| Courtesy flag narrower changes to the broker | On — guideline WG-20 | On · Off |
| Approver for war, cyber operation, infrastructure | Delphine Okoro | Delphine Okoro · Tomas Reyna |
| Second approver above a $10M line | On — Chief Underwriting Officer | On · Off |
| First warning before bind | 3 days | 2 · 3 · 5 days |
| Final warning | 1 day | 1 · 2 days |
| Wording agreed before inception | On — never sign after inception without the certainty analyst | On · Off |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate, including 3–4 hours by eye · “typical” = published figures (Lloyd’s full-year results 2025 — £57.9bn gross written premium; AM Best surplus lines report — $143.3B in 2025). Lloyd’s Market Bulletin Y5381 (Aug 2022) is a real public reference; insureds, carriers, brokers, wordings and people named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Software that compares a broker or manuscript wording with your standard form and shows every difference. Policy Wording Comparison goes further than a text compare: it aligns clauses by meaning even when renumbered or moved, says in plain words what each change does to coverage, rates it wider, narrower or neutral, and routes material changes to the right approver.
A text compare matches by position, so renumbered and moved clauses show up as false differences, and it only shows what text changed. Here the clause aligner pairs clauses by meaning, and the coverage effect writer explains what each change does to the cover, citing both texts and the guideline it touches.
Yes, against your own guidelines. In the working solution, any change to the war, cyber war and cyber operation exclusion, however small, goes to the Head of Cyber, and the infrastructure exclusion is required on every cyber wording. Lloyd’s Market Bulletin Y5381 requires standalone cyber policies written at Lloyd’s incepting or renewing from 31 March 2023 to exclude state-backed cyber-attacks, which is why two deleted words matter.
The person your authority matrix names for that clause family — for example the class underwriter for computer system, notice and betterment changes, the head of class for war and infrastructure, and legal counsel for sanctions, choice of law and drafted clauses. The agents route; they never approve.
Yes. The working solution holds standard forms for cyber, D&O, marine cargo, excess casualty, contractors’ all risks and onshore energy, and compares each broker wording with its own form and the guidelines for its class.
The market clause watcher checks market clause updates every morning and re-checks open wordings that still use the earlier version. It never changes a bound wording; legal counsel decides what enters your library.
Yes. Agents describe and route. Each material change carries a named approver and a time, the wordings specialist signs the wording decision, and the counter-wording goes to the broker only after sign-off.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements — your standard forms, approved clauses, wording guidelines and authority matrix — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it first on a broker wording you have already placed.
Control gaps found before the quote, each linked to the answer or scan.
1-min demoCyber Accumulation ManagementExposed insureds and limit listed the day a vendor event breaks.
1-min demoClause Library & Precedent SearchA cited precedent in seconds, not an email to the one specialist who knows.
1-min demoWe’ll run Policy Wording Comparison on your own standard form and a broker wording you have already placed.