Climate-Geospatial Evidence Board Guide — Reinsurance

The mandate

Directors keep confronting one uncomfortable question: when higher-resolution hazard and exposure data materially changes a catastrophe view, how much confidence should attach to the apparent precision? Underwriting papers blend satellite observations, vendor hazard layers, address geocoding, downscaled climate scenarios and expert adjustment, but rarely show how spatial uncertainty propagates into accumulation, price or risk appetite.

The adviser will commit two days each month to a CRO briefing, model challenge clinic and board-paper review, plus four scheduled Board Risk Committee meetings. A concise written view on a material event response or portfolio-limit proposal is expected within two French business days. Field or regulator sessions beyond the agreed cadence require advance approval and separate remuneration.

The initial appointment lasts nine months, beginning February 2027. The committee will review effectiveness in month seven and may recommend a single three-month renewal if a major model transition remains under board consideration. Renewal needs full board approval; the CRO may adjust meeting dates but cannot enlarge the mandate or extend the term independently.

The role carries no line authority, executive responsibility, underwriting delegation or model-validation sign-off. The adviser influences questions and evidence thresholds but cannot set prices, approve capacity, choose a vendor or accept model risk. Accountable executives must document their own judgement, particularly where commercial decisions proceed despite unresolved geospatial limitations.

Two other advisory appointments are permissible if they do not involve competing reinsurers, catastrophe-model vendors under evaluation or counterparties in a live risk transfer. All relevant investments, academic funding and public-sector data roles require disclosure. Access to another carrier’s proprietary exposure or event-loss data may constitute a conflict that recusal cannot adequately manage.

Why the board wants this voice

The board has deep actuarial and underwriting expertise but limited direct experience connecting remote sensing, spatial data engineering and catastrophe-model uncertainty. Management teams can each defend their component, leaving directors without a joined-up view of evidence fragility. They want an independent practitioner who will challenge false precision while still enabling timely portfolio decisions.

What you will own

• Press directors to separate geocoding accuracy, hazard resolution, exposure completeness, vulnerability uncertainty and climate-scenario judgement in portfolio papers.
• Test whether higher-resolution layers improve out-of-sample loss understanding or merely create more detailed maps around uncertain assumptions.
• Challenge aggregation choices where administrative boundaries, raster cells, coastal features or correlated infrastructure create hidden concentration shifts.
• Shape decision thresholds for model override, portfolio limit, additional data purchase and independent validation based on materiality to risk appetite.
• Probe vendor comparisons for inconsistent event sets, spatial reference systems, vulnerability functions and treatment of missing or mobile exposures.
• Frame post-event questions that distinguish observation latency, footprint revision, exposure movement and claims-development effects before changing the portfolio view.
• Coach the committee to record which uncertainty it accepts, which evidence it requires and which executive owns each consequential modelling judgement.

Candidate qualifications

• Led geospatial or catastrophe-risk analytics for a reinsurer, insurer, risk modeller or major exposed-asset operator with board-facing accountability.
• Combined satellite, hazard, exposure and claims evidence and can explain how spatial uncertainty changed a real capacity, pricing or accumulation decision.
• Challenged apparent model precision using out-of-sample events, alternative geocoding, aggregation tests or independent physical evidence.
• Communicated technically difficult uncertainty to directors without collapsing it into a single confidence score or avoiding an actionable recommendation.
• Governed external model and data providers while maintaining an evidence position independent of vendor benchmark claims.
• Managed confidentiality and conflicts across carriers, brokers, research groups, public agencies and commercial geospatial suppliers.

Non-negotiables

• Able to attend all four Paris committee meetings in person and maintain the agreed two-day monthly availability.
• Will disclose board positions, carrier work, data-vendor relationships, research sponsorship and material investments before appointment.
• Accepts that underwriting, validation and risk-acceptance decisions remain with accountable executives even when advice is not followed.
• Must evidence deployed insurance or physical-risk decisions; general climate strategy without geospatial modelling depth is insufficient.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe a portfolio decision changed by geospatial uncertainty rather than by the central catastrophe-model result.
2. 49 words maximum. Which present appointments or funding relationships could conflict with this reinsurer or its model suppliers?
3. 49 words maximum. How would you test whether a higher-resolution hazard layer adds decision value rather than false precision?