Scope filtering requirements

[johcarter]

from Aiste:

For filtering options (as we touched it on the call today), if we ignore the other fields in scope file , I can see below combinations being used in practice:

• PortNumber, AccNumber & LocNumber <- note, you don’t need to have PolNumber, if you are using LocNumber and it applies for the entire account, and not just for one layer (for example)
• PortNumber & AccNumber
• Portnumber, AccNumber & PolNumber
• Portnumber, AccNumber, PolNumber & LocNumber

So the above are for filtering scope. The example below explains how this works with RiskLevel and that filtering scope option is not tied to RiskLevel.

You can specify PortNumber & AccNumber, but RiskLevel = LOC. For example, you have 5 accounts, but between them they have 1 million locations, so filtering by account is rather efficient, as you only have to enter 5 records in Reins_scope field. However, you may still want to apply risk terms (RiskLimit & RiskAttachment) per location (i.e. RiskLevel = LOC) within the scope specified.

In terms of filtering entire portfolio on AccNumber field, it is possible, but the users would not be happy (think of cases where portfolio consists of thousands of accounts, as this would mean providing thousands of records in reins_scope file).

[aiste-kalinauskaite]

Filtering reinsurance should be done with almost any combination from the 10 reinsurance scope filtering fields. Additional fields can be filtered on their own: CedantName, ProducerName, LOB, CountryCode, ReinsTag.
Some filtering may not make too much sense (or rather not add anything in addition). E.g. having ReinsTag with LocNumber (and any combination of other fields) or having LocNumber with any of the 5 fields: CedantName, ProducerName, LOB, CountryCode, ReinsTag (or combination of them + any combination of PortNumber, AccNumber, PolNumber) shouldn't really be done.

[johcarter]

review existing functionality before closing