This template is part of the underwriting referral triage guide. For the covering message, use the warm introduction brief; for the conversation that comes before it, see how advisors introduce insurance operations clients.
Three rules before you fill anything in
- Describe, never attach. No submissions, referral notes, approval screens, loss runs, inspection reports or exports. No policyholder or broker names, even in an example.
- Every number names its source. "About 2,000 to 2,500 referrals a year (operations head, estimate)" is better than a precise figure nobody can stand behind.
- Unknown is a valid answer. If nobody knows whether approval conditions were structured fields before a certain year, write unknown. Do not ask anyone to query the workbench to find out.
The blank brief: copy and complete
| Field | What to write | Who usually answers |
|---|---|---|
| Company and lines | Carrier, MGA or coverholder; lines of business written | Underwriting operations head |
| Headcount | Full-time employees at peak, contractors excluded | HR or finance |
| Paper | Own paper, or which carriers under delegated authority, with years | Chief underwriting officer |
| Systems | Underwriting workbench, policy administration, mail, inspection or loss control tool | Underwriting operations head |
| Record classes | Referral flags and reasons, referral questions, decision notes, approvals with conditions, authority grid versions, condition-clearing evidence | Underwriting operations head |
| Years of history | First and last year for each class | Underwriting operations head |
| Volume | Referrals per year (rough), share reaching the chief underwriting officer | Underwriting operations head |
| Condition format | Structured fields or free text, and when that changed | Underwriting operations head |
| Open question | The one thing nobody has checked across the whole history | Chief underwriting officer |
| Access deadline | Documented date a legacy system goes read-only or is switched off | IT, procurement |
| Ownership note | Which records the company created, which came from brokers or carriers | General counsel |
| Authorized contact | Name and title of the executive who can approve a discussion | CEO |
| Sponsor | Who checked the brief for accuracy | Underwriting operations head |
Two fields deserve care. Paper matters because a managing general agent writing under several carriers may hold files under a different agreement for each, and SourceX's rights review reads every one. Condition format matters because approvals can carry real structure. In Guidewire PolicyCenter, for example, an approval can be ordinary or special and can carry a value limit, an editability setting and a duration, and in-force referral reasons are resolved by closing or special closing them. Whether those details were captured as fields, or typed into a note, decides how much of the history explains itself.
Completed example (Illustrative)
Every value below is invented for a fictional insurer. It shows the level of detail to aim for, not a real company or opportunity.
| Field | Illustrative entry |
|---|---|
| Company and lines | Regional commercial insurer; commercial property and general liability |
| Headcount | About 400 full-time employees at peak (HR) |
| Paper | Own paper throughout |
| Systems | Legacy underwriting workbench, policy administration system, Microsoft 365 mail, loss control application |
| Record classes | Referral flags with reason codes, referral questions, decision notes, approvals with conditions, authority grid versions, loss control clearing reports |
| Years of history | 2017 to present, nearly ten years |
| Volume | 2,000 to 2,500 referrals a year; roughly one in ten reach the chief underwriting officer (operations head, estimate) |
| Condition format | Free text before 2021, structured fields with due dates since |
| Open question | Can pre-2021 clearing reports still be matched to the approval condition they cleared? |
| Access deadline | Legacy workbench goes read-only nine months after the new workbench launches |
| Ownership note | Notes, approvals and grids are the company's; inspection reports come from a vendor |
| Authorized contact | CEO, with general counsel |
| Sponsor | Underwriting operations head |
Microsoft 365The open question is what makes the brief worth reading. A referral history where each approval condition can be traced to the evidence that cleared it records a full decision: the limit that was hit, the judgment of the senior underwriter, the terms imposed and the proof they were met. AI agents need work data explains why multi-step records like these interest AI developers, and the underwriting notes page covers the broader file.
Filling it in during a twenty-minute call
- Shape (five minutes). Lines of business, own paper or delegated authority, headcount, and which workbench the company has used since it began writing.
- History (ten minutes). For each record class, the first year anyone remembers and whether it was kept continuously. Ask how long policy files are kept; an NAIC model regulation calls for a policy record file kept for the current term plus three years, but each state sets its own period and the company's own schedule is what counts. Ranges are fine.
- The question (three minutes). Ask what underwriting leadership has never had time to check across the whole history. Their phrasing usually becomes the open question.
- People (two minutes). Who signs material contracts, who reads carrier and broker terms, and whether the sponsor will forward the brief.
Send the draft back the same day for corrections. Nothing should surprise the executive who receives it, and nothing should need an export to verify.
Where briefs usually go wrong
- Naming the workbench administrator as contact. System access is not authority. The CEO can authorize a licensing discussion; the decision tree on who can license these records shows who else should be named.
- Skipping the carrier list for an MGA. Without it, rights review cannot start.
- Hiding the deadline. If the legacy workbench has a documented read-only date, say so. It is the only urgency worth naming.
- Describing an exception in detail. One sentence on the kind of case is enough; the exception examples do the rest.
- Promising an outcome. The brief describes records; it never suggests a deal, a value or a reward figure.
Qualification check before sending
The company needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a documented operating history, rights to license the records and an authorized contact. Companies in the U.S., Canada and the EU qualify, as do companies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia when at least 90% of the data is in English. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting introductions; the first valid introduction within the 90-day window is credited when the company submits a verified application.
Unknown until SourceX reviews it: buyer interest in referral triage histories, what carrier and broker agreements allow, how policyholder details are de-identified, which years are in scope, and any offer.
Next step
Refer a company. Earn up to $100,000. Default reward: 25% of Actual Supplier Payout, capped at $100,000 cumulatively per referred company. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.
When the underwriting operations head has checked every field and the named executive agrees to a call, register as a partner, confirm the insurer on who qualifies and keep the program terms beside the brief as you submit it.