MattDonovan82
commented
1 week ago Thanks @johcarter. As previously discussed, I don't think the 'level of priority' field is required in the spec as this was only used to guide for the working group for the first draft of the liability/cyber schemas.
I agree with your proposed changes.
johcarter
Rather than have one 'Required Field' column applicable across all exposure classes, and a YES/NO column per class indicating applicability, instead have a 'Required Field' column per class. This allows for fields to have a different required field status depending on exposure class, which is an emerging requirement in the integration of cyber and liability into OED main.
Property 'Required field' (col D in OED Input Fields) --> 'Property field status'
Cyber/Liability Level of Priority --> {Cyber} Required field and {Liability} Required field The values in 'level of priority' would be mapped as follows;
It is not proposed to keep the original 'Level of Priority' in the specification unless there is a specific use for them. (They can optionally be retained as a reference table in a separate document)
Reasons for change
There are different levels of requirement for the same fields across lines of business. e.g. Policy financial terms are not required for property, but they are considered essential for cyber policies. It is difficult to align required field status across classes and meet all requirements. ## Scope of change - [ X] Specification - [ ] Location File - [ ] Accounts File - [ ] Reinsurance Scope - [ ] Reinsurance Info ## Impact of change Part of a major restructuring of the specification. Non-breaking for property, as the existing 'Required field' column will become the 'Property field status' column, with no other changes. OED files containing multiple exposure classes would not work due to potential conflicts in required field status, but this does not seem to be a requirement.