What did the submission summary miss?
Reconcile a property schedule and apply a one-row amendment.
The question
You prepare the file for a fictional commercial property underwriter. You can correct an internal draft. The underwriter owns the review.
| Submitted value | |
|---|---|
| A | 4.2 |
| B | 2.6 |
| C | 1.2 |
Values are in CAD millions. They are the amounts in the broker’s schedule.
- Extracted rowsA and B only.
- Draft totalCAD 6.8 million.
“Which total should the reviewer use, and how would you explain it?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: What did the draft miss?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Use 6.8 because the draft adds up
Tempting, but it misses something. It adds up only for the two rows it extracted.
Recalculate the three source rows
The strong move. A, B and C reconcile to 8.0. The draft leaves out C.
Report C as a separate submission
Tempting, but it misses something. The broker’s schedule lists C as part of the same file.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The v4 schedule totals CAD 8.0 million. The draft has A and B, which total 6.8. It missed 1.2 at C.”
Why it works: The rows in the broker schedule establish which locations the total includes.
Step 2: Which figures can you carry forward?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Write only the corrected total
Tempting, but it misses something. The reviewer cannot tell which location was missing.
Present 8.0 as an insurer’s allocation
Tempting, but it misses something. The schedule shows what the broker submitted. No insurer allocation is in the file.
Carry the three values with their source and unit
The strong move. The reviewer can reconcile the total to the broker record.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I’ll keep A, B and C as submitted and record that each came from v4. I’ll flag the omitted C row in the draft.”
Why it works: The reviewer can trace each value. These are submitted values and do not establish an amount the insurer will offer.
Step 3: What does the amendment replace?
The broker sends v5 with B at CAD 2.9 million. The message says it replaces B only.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Replace B only and recalculate
The strong move. 4.2 + 2.9 + 1.2 is 8.3.
Add 2.9 to the original 8.0
Tempting, but it misses something. That counts both versions of B and gives 10.9.
Replace the entire schedule with 2.9
Tempting, but it misses something. The broker’s amendment changes one row, not the entire schedule.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I’ll replace B with 2.9 from v5, keep A and C from v4 and report CAD 8.3 million.”
Why it works: The broker’s message limits the change to B. The two other rows stay in the schedule.
Step 4: What should the reviewer receive?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Send the v5 attachment alone
Tempting, but it misses something. It omits A and C, which still apply.
Send the reconciled schedule and row-level source notes
The strong move. The review can proceed on the current evidence.
Tell the broker the insurer accepted the revised amount
Tempting, but it misses something. The candidate checked records. The underwriter has not made that decision.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The revised submitted total is CAD 8.3 million. A and C come from v4. B is 2.9 from v5 and replaces 2.6. The original AI draft omitted C.”
Why it works: The reviewer gets a total, a traceable change and the reason the first draft was incomplete.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Use the broker’s v5 value for B and keep A and C from v4.
- Because
- The amendment applies to one location. The revised submitted total is CAD 8.3 million.
- What would change it
- If the broker issues a full replacement, check all rows against that new schedule.
Common traps
- Treating an internally consistent draft as complete
- Adding both versions of the amended row
Check your answer
- Which row was omitted?
- What did the broker say v5 replaces?
- Can the reviewer trace each value?
- Who owns the underwriting decision?
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026