Leakage Analytics
Premium Leakage Analytics — Quantify and Recover Reinsurance Revenue.
CedeOS identifies reinsurance premium leakage prospectively — by policy, by treaty clause, by cedant — before submission.
Portfolio Leakage Rate
$49.2M GWP
Quarterly Trend
Error Category Breakdown
Top exposure: Cession Rate Error
23 errors · $531K · Cl.4.1
The Condition
The error-to-discovery gap is 3 to 18 months. At 18 months, recovery is 40 cents on the dollar.
WITH CEDEOS: Detection same day. Before submission. Full recovery.
Replace with: detailed timeline SVG showing error → discovery gap vs. CedeOS detection
Cession rate errors
Treaty says 70% quota share. One cedant submits at 65% across 400 policies. The 5% delta accumulates for 14 months before detection at annual reconciliation.
Detection: 14 months post-error · Recovery: contested at 40–60 cents
Treaty application errors
Motor fleet exclusion in the treaty schedule. Three policies classified as 'commercial motor' in the bordereaux but 'fleet' in the policy system. The mismatch is invisible in aggregate.
USD 100K–200K typical accumulated exposure · Recovery contested at 40–60 cents
Reinstatement calculation errors
Treaty reinstatement calculated on original annual premium. Mid-year endorsement changes the basis. System uses post-endorsement figure. Error compounds every quarter.
Multi-million KES accumulated · Typically identified at renewal · No prospective detection mechanism
Scenarios reflect common leakage patterns across African and Asian reinsurance programmes. Financial figures based on treaty structure analysis and industry benchmarks. Specific client validation in progress.
The Cost
The leakage is not visible in aggregate. It lives in the rows.
Recoverable per year at $50M GWP
2.5% × $50M GWP
Analyst hours/week on format conversion
MGA operations survey
Reconciliation accuracy improvement
vs. unvalidated manual baseline
Error categories invisible to manual review
Detected only at row level
Methodology: 2.5% × $50M GWP = $1.25M recoverable per year. Industry benchmark validated against African and Asian treaty programme structures.
Projected Recovery
The exposure is quantifiable before the first submission.
A single pilot assessment — one quarter of bordereaux data validated against applicable treaty clauses — surfaces leakage across five error categories that manual reconciliation cannot detect at the row level.
Annual recoverable leakage
Methodology: 2.5% × $50M GWP. Industry benchmark validated against East African and Asian treaty programme structures. Pilot validation in progress.
The Mechanism
Four analytics panels. Every error quantified, cited, and documented.
Portfolio Leakage Rate
Aggregate leakage across all cedants as a percentage of GWP. Trended quarterly. Benchmarked against target. The CFO metric.
Error Category Breakdown
Five error categories quantified: cession rate, treaty application, exclusion misclassification, reinstatement calculation, aggregate breach. Per-category exposure in local currency and USD.
Cedant-Level Exposure
Every cedant ranked by total leakage exposure. Drilldown to policy level. Treaty clause citation for every error. The conversation starter for cedant reviews.
Recovery Documentation
For every error identified: the incorrect value, the correct value, the governing clause, the financial impact. Exportable as audit-ready evidence pack per cedant.
Portfolio Leakage Rate
Industry benchmark: 2.5% avg GWP leakage
Error Category Breakdown
Top: Cession Rate Error · $531K · Cl.4.1
Treaty Exposure (Ranked)
Recovery Documentation
KE-001
Cession Rate · Cl.4.1
KE-002
Treaty Application · Cl.9(b)
KE-003
Reinstatement · Cl.14.2
Q3 2025 · IFRS 17 trace active · af-south-1
cedeos.co/analytics
Two Modes
Prospective detection. Retrospective recovery.
Prospective (Going Forward)
- Row-level validation before any figure enters the accounts
- Five error categories checked on every row
- Caught at ingestion, before submission
- Full recovery — zero dispute
Timeline: Same day · Recovery: 100%
Retrospective (Historical Portfolio)
- Historical bordereaux re-validated against current treaty rules
- Carrier-by-carrier exposure quantified
- Recovery documentation generated automatically
- Supports dispute evidence with clause citation
Timeline: First pilot week · Recovery: 40–90% depending on gap
How it works
From ingestion to recovery documentation. Five steps.
Ingestion
Bordereaux ingested in any format. Normalised, currency-converted, confidence-scored.
Treaty Rule Extraction
Applicable treaty clauses identified per row. Cession rates, exclusions, retention limits indexed.
Row-Level Validation
Every row checked against every applicable rule. Five error categories. Clause-cited discrepancies.
Leakage Quantification
Each error quantified in local currency and USD. Aggregated by cedant, error type, and treaty period.
Recovery Documentation
Audit-ready evidence pack per cedant. Incorrect value, correct value, governing clause, financial impact.
Regulatory Alignment
Leakage analytics that map to your regulatory framework.
IRA Kenya
Leakage analytics outputs map directly to IRA quarterly reporting formats. Cession rate validation per treaty terms.
NAICOM Nigeria
40% minimum cession rate validated per row. Error quantification in NGN for local reporting.
SAMA Saudi Arabia
Takaful surplus distribution validated. Wakala fee accuracy per participant.
IFRS 17
CSM impact of leakage quantified. Every correction traced from source policy to financial statement.
The Path
From first assessment to ongoing leakage prevention.
Day 0
Technical Brief
Architecture, methodology, data residency, error category definitions.
Week 1
Pilot Assessment
One quarter of bordereaux. We return leakage quantification across all five error categories.
Week 2
Live Demo
Your data, your leakage. See exactly where your GWP is exposed.
Week 4
Ongoing Analytics
Prospective detection active. Every submission validated. Quarterly leakage trend report.
Get started