| name | actuarial-consulting |
| description | Guides actuarial consulting engagements—client scoping and SOW design, stakeholder communication
(CFO, risk, boards, regulators at overview level), due diligence and M&A actuarial support,
reserving/pricing/capital review programs, model validation and opinion support, regulatory
interaction prep, and deliverable governance (memos, exhibits, management presentations).
Use when the user mentions actuarial consulting, actuarial engagement, reserve opinion,
due diligence actuarial, model validation engagement, actuarial memo, SOW actuarial,
regulatory actuarial, M&A reserves, or actuarial review—not deep technical modeling execution
(actuary), P&C line education only (property-casualty-insurance), legal advice
(commercial-counsel), or generic management consulting without actuarial lens
(business-consultant).
|
Actuarial Consulting
When to Use
- Frame a new actuarial consulting engagement (objectives, boundaries, independence)
- Draft or review SOW, fees, data access, and deliverable list for actuarial work
- Plan stakeholder communications (CFO, CRO, board, audit committee, regulators—overview)
- Support M&A, divestiture, or reinsurance due diligence on reserves, pricing, and capital
- Structure reserve opinion, pricing review, or capital assessment engagements (not sole modeler)
- Scope model validation, peer review, or opinion-support workpapers
- Prepare regulatory meeting materials (talking points, exhibit index—not legal filings)
- Design deliverable packages: actuarial memo, exhibits, management presentation, Q&A log
- Run project governance: timeline, quality review, documentation, and sign-off chain
When NOT to Use
- Execute pricing triangles, IBNR development, or assumption fitting as primary deliverable →
actuary
- Teach P&C coverages, claims handling, or underwriting mechanics without engagement lens →
property-casualty-insurance
- Interpret contracts, policy wording, or provide legal/regulatory enforcement advice →
commercial-counsel
- Corporate FP&A, budgets, or non-insurance investor metrics →
financial-analyst (if installed)
- Strategy, operating model, or transformation without actuarial workstream →
business-consultant
- SOC 2 / ISO control mapping and technical audit evidence →
compliance-engineer
- Cross-team software delivery, RAID, and program milestones only →
technical-program-manager
Related skills
| Need | Skill |
|---|
| Technical pricing, reserving, triangles, assumptions | actuary |
| P&C products, claims, underwriting context | property-casualty-insurance |
| Financial statements, variance, non-insurance analytics | financial-analyst (if installed) |
| Executive strategy without actuarial deliverables | business-consultant |
| Contract, DPA, regulatory interpretation | commercial-counsel |
| Control evidence and compliance automation | compliance-engineer |
| Multi-team timelines, dependencies, launch governance | technical-program-manager |
Core Workflows
1. Engagement framing and independence
- Clarify client role (insurer, reinsurer, investor, regulator-facing company, TPA)
- Define decision the engagement supports (transaction, opinion year, model approval, board review)
- Document independence constraints (prior work, management roles, advocacy vs advisory)
- Identify conflicts (same team pricing and opining; data vendor ties)
- Set success criteria and explicit out-of-scope items
See references/actuarial_consulting_scope.md.
2. Scoping and SOW
- List deliverables with format (memo, workbook, presentation, data request)
- Specify data owners, cutoffs, legal hold, and confidentiality
- Define methods at headline level; defer technical picks to
actuary workstream
- Agree timeline, review gates, and client point-of-contact
- Include fees, change-control, and reliance limitations
See references/engagement_scoping_and_sow.md.
3. Client deliverables and communication
- Map audiences (CFO, CRO, board, external auditor, regulator—overview)
- Build storyline: issue → analysis → implication → decision or open item
- Separate executive summary from technical appendix and exhibits
- Prepare management presentation and anticipated Q&A
- Log version control, distribution list, and redaction rules
See references/client_deliverables_and_communication.md.
4. Due diligence and M&A support
- Scope blocks (reserves, pricing, capital, reinsurance, run-off, embedded value)
- Request data room index aligned to actuarial questions
- Define red-flag checklist (development spikes, one-time items, model changes)
- Structure findings by materiality and deal impact (not investment advice)
- Hand off deep modeling to
actuary; legal terms to commercial-counsel
See references/due_diligence_and_ma_support.md.
5. Model review and validation engagements
- Classify engagement type (validation, peer review, opinion support, use test)
- Inventory models, owners, version, and intended use
- Plan testing themes (assumions, implementation, governance, output reasonability)
- Document findings severity, remediation, and re-test criteria
- Coordinate with appointed actuary or signatory where applicable
See references/model_review_and_validation_engagements.md.
6. Regulatory, board, and governance
- Clarify forum (examination prep, board risk committee, audit committee)
- Align messages to prior filings and public disclosures
- Prepare exhibit index and backup schedules—not substitute for counsel
- Track action items, responsible owners, and dates
- Archive workpapers per firm policy and professional standards (overview)
See references/regulatory_board_and_governance.md.
Engagement kickoff checklist
Copy and track at project start:
Engagement kickoff:
- [ ] Signed SOW / engagement letter with limitations
- [ ] Independence and conflict memo on file
- [ ] Data request issued; owners and cutoff agreed
- [ ] Internal team: EM, technical actuary, reviewer, PM (if needed)
- [ ] Client RACI: sponsor, data SME, signatory actuary
- [ ] Deliverable formats and draft review dates
- [ ] Escalation path (client + firm risk/quality)
Engagement type matrix
| Trigger phrase | Primary workflow | Lead reference |
|---|
| SOW actuarial / actuarial engagement | Scoping and SOW | engagement_scoping_and_sow.md |
| actuarial memo / management presentation | Deliverables and comms | client_deliverables_and_communication.md |
| due diligence actuarial / M&A reserves | DD framing and findings | due_diligence_and_ma_support.md |
| model validation engagement | Validation plan and findings | model_review_and_validation_engagements.md |
| reserve opinion / actuarial review | Opinion support + governance | regulatory_board_and_governance.md |
| regulatory actuarial | Prep pack (overview) | regulatory_board_and_governance.md |
When multiple types apply (e.g., M&A plus validation), split workstreams in the SOW with separate timelines and reviewers.
Quality review and sign-off
Before any client-facing draft:
- Technical completeness — exhibits tie to data cutoff; bridges reconcile
- Narrative consistency — memo, deck, and appendix use same definitions
- Audience test — executive summary understandable without actuarial training
- Independence check — no advocacy language beyond supported analysis
- EQ / peer review — logged comments resolved or documented as exceptions
- Versioning — draft watermark until final; distribution list approved
Coordinate with technical-program-manager when actuarial work is one stream in a larger transaction program (shared milestones only).
Deliverable standards
| Deliverable | Minimum content |
|---|
| Engagement letter / SOW | Scope, deliverables, data, timeline, fees, limitations, reliance |
| Actuarial memo | Purpose, scope, summary conclusion, methods overview, limitations, exhibits list |
| Management deck | 5–12 slides: context, findings, impact, recommendations, open items |
| DD report section | Material issues, evidence pointers, quantified range where supported |
| Validation report | Scope, criteria, findings, management responses, follow-up |
| Board / regulatory pack | Agenda fit, consistent metrics, glossary, appendix index |
| Workshop readout | Decisions, open items, owners, dates |
| Finding register | ID, severity, evidence, management response, re-test status |
State uncertainty, reliance limits, and non-advice boundaries. Do not present consulting output as statutory filing, legal opinion, or appointed-actuary sign-off without qualified human review.
Common pitfalls
- Scope creep without change order when new LOBs or models are added mid-engagement
- Orphan exhibits that do not support a stated conclusion in the memo
- Metric drift between deck, memo, and public filings
- Dual role pressure (consultant validates own prior model build)
- Missing data treated as zero rather than flagged as limitation
- Regulatory meeting prep that crosses into legal interpretation—escalate to
commercial-counsel
When to load references
- Scope, independence, ethics →
references/actuarial_consulting_scope.md
- SOW and scoping →
references/engagement_scoping_and_sow.md
- Memos, decks, stakeholder comms →
references/client_deliverables_and_communication.md
- M&A and due diligence →
references/due_diligence_and_ma_support.md
- Model validation and review →
references/model_review_and_validation_engagements.md
- Board, regulatory prep, governance →
references/regulatory_board_and_governance.md
