Guide

When the slip and the SOV disagree

Slip TIV USD 42,000,000 versus SOV USD 47,100,000 is a conflict, not a missing TIV, and not a rounding error. Show both spans. Do not average.

The slip is the placing instrument. The SOV is the schedule of values. They should agree on TIV and on the location list. They often do not. When they disagree, the pack has a conflict, not a missing TIV, and not a rounding error.

This page expands the ACME Construction Ltd example used across this site. Slip TIV USD 42,000,000. SOV total USD 47,100,000 because a warehouse was added after the slip was typed. The occurrence limit on slip page 2 is USD 10,000,000 and is not in dispute. The hours clause is absent. The SOV has no as-at date. You can click the same file in the pack inspector.

This guide is a child of facultative reinsurance and of the brokers hub. The document list around it is how to build a facultative submission pack. The field contract is source-grounded extraction. Treaty bordereaux are a different inbox: treaty reinsurance.

Two documents, two jobs

The slip or MRC names the insured, the period, the interest, the territory, the limits, the deductibles, and often a TIV or a pointer "as per SOV." If any of those are "as attached," the attachment must be in the zip, and the field must point at the attachment, not at the covering email that restated it.

The SOV or location schedule must be summable. A PDF of a schedule that cannot be totalled is not an SOV. It is a picture of an SOV. Chase a workbook, or accept that TIV is a gap.

They meet on TIV and on locations. That meeting is where packs stall.

If the slip says TIV "as per SOV" and the SOV sums cleanly, TIV is traced to the SOV total row. That is not a conflict. It is a pointer. If the slip also prints a figure that disagrees with that total, you are back to a conflict even though the slip tried to defer to the schedule.

Location-level mismatches belong next to TIV. A warehouse on the SOV and not on the slip schedule is part of the same problem. A location on the slip with no value on the SOV is a gap on the schedule, which is a different chase: complete the SOV, do not invent a value.

Covering emails are not a third placing instrument. If the email says TIV USD 45,000,000 to "split the difference," that is a fourth number with a span into an email. Store it as a conflict against both documents if someone tries to use it. Do not let it become the pack TIV.

The ACME Construction file

The public inspector uses one fictional file so the site does not need a live client pack. ACME Construction Ltd, domain acme.example, property facultative.

The broker mailbox receives a zip. Slip.pdf page 1 names the insured ACME Construction Ltd and the period 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026. Slip.pdf page 2 states an occurrence limit of USD 10,000,000 any one occurrence, and a TIV of USD 42,000,000. SOV.xlsx lists locations. The total row sums to USD 47,100,000. The extra row is a warehouse that does not appear on the slip schedule. There is no hours clause in any document in the pack. There is no as-at date on the SOV.

Here is what the pack must do.

Named insured is traced. Document Slip.pdf, page 1, span ACME Construction Ltd. Period is traced to the same page. Occurrence limit is traced to page 2, span USD 10,000,000 any one occurrence. Those fields are ready for an underwriter to accept.

TIV is a conflict. Slip.pdf page 2 says USD 42,000,000. The SOV total row says USD 47,100,000. Both spans are stored. The pack does not emit a single TIV. It does not average 44.55 million. It does not pick the SOV "because schedules are more detailed" and bury the slip. It does not pick the slip "because the slip is the contract" and bury the warehouse. The extra warehouse is evidence, not a cleanup task for the model.

Hours clause is a gap. No span in the pack. The field value is empty. The chase list carries an item: hours clause required, not found in Slip.pdf or the wording excerpts. SOV as-at date is a gap of the same kind. A stale or undated schedule is not a dated schedule.

A weaker system does something else. It completes the hours clause from a similar construction risk. It restates TIV as approximately USD 45 million. It drops the warehouse because the slip schedule was shorter. At bind, nobody can show what was offered. At loss, the warehouse is either a coverage fight or a silent extra location in the accumulation view.

The difference of USD 5,100,000 is not "materiality." Materiality is a human decision after both spans are visible. Software that hides the warehouse because 5.1 million is a small share of 47.1 million has already chosen for the underwriter.

Why averaging fails

Averaging two TIVs produces a third number that neither document contains. There is no page to open. There is no cell to cite. At a claims meeting you cannot point at the slip or the SOV. You point at a model's arithmetic.

Picking the SOV because it is more detailed hides the fact that the market is being asked to write a slip that does not include the warehouse. If a loss hits the warehouse, the placing file said the warehouse was not on the slip. If you bound the SOV TIV silently, you may have charged for a schedule the slip never named, or you may have thought you did.

Picking the slip hides a location that will still be there at the loss. Accumulation, PML conversations, and engineering visits will still find the warehouse. The underwriter who priced USD 42,000,000 TIV did not price that building unless you told them.

The underwriter needs the conflict in order to ask: is the warehouse in or out, and will the slip be amended. That is a chase item with a name, not a feeling that TIV is "a bit messy."

Write it so a broker assistant can act.

• Conflict: TIV slip USD 42,000,000 versus SOV USD 47,100,000. Warehouse on SOV, not on slip schedule. Resolve whether the warehouse is on cover and amend the placing document.
• Gap: hours clause missing from Slip.pdf and wording excerpts.
• Gap: SOV as-at date missing from SOV.xlsx.

Regenerate when a new attachment arrives. A chase list frozen in a PDF from Tuesday is wrong on Wednesday if Wednesday's email attaches an amended slip that now lists the warehouse at USD 47,100,000. Then TIV may become a pointer or a traced SOV total, and the conflict closes because a document superseded, not because someone averaged.

Other slip-versus-schedule fights

TIV is the loud one. These sit next to it.

Named insured legal name on the slip versus a trading name on the SOV. ACME Construction Ltd versus "ACME Construction" without Ltd is sometimes the same legal person and sometimes not. Store both spans. Do not silently normalise.

Occupancy or construction on the slip versus a comments column on the SOV. Construction occupancy with a warehouse row that looks like storage-only is a question, not a cleanup.

Territory or "situation" on the slip versus addresses on the SOV. If the slip is "United Kingdom" and the warehouse is a third country, that location is not a TIV rounding issue.

Currency mixed on the SOV without a basis, while the slip is USD. Totalling mixed currency as if it were USD 47,100,000 is a false TIV. Fix the schedule. Do not convert at an uncited rate to force a match to the slip.

Deductible on slip page 1 versus a different deductible in an endorsement, with the SOV silent. That is not a TIV conflict. It is still a conflict. Do not let TIV drama hide it.

Unsigned slip presented with a detailed SOV. The schedule does not make the slip written. The chase is a signature or a clear draft stamp, not a TIV pick.

Prior SOV in the zip without a superseded label. Three schedules, three totals. The live SOV must be named. Extra files create extra conflicts. If you must include a prior version, label it superseded.

Each of those belongs on the chase list defined in what is a chase list in reinsurance submissions?. Underwriters can quote through a short named list. They cannot quote through a narrative that says the file is substantially complete.

What brokers and underwriters each owe

Brokers assemble the outbound pack. The job is not to make TIV pretty. The job is to make the fight visible and then close it with an amended slip or an amended SOV before asking for lines. Send the chase list as the cover note. See the brokers hub.

If the warehouse is in, amend the slip TIV and the situation so the placing instrument includes it. If the warehouse is out, take it off the SOV or mark it not covered, and make sure accumulation views do not still add it. Either amendment is a document. A phone call is not a span.

Underwriters, on the inbound side, should refuse a single TIV when two spans exist. They can still quote, with a condition. They should not discover the warehouse in a surveyor's photograph after they wrote USD 42,000,000. Reinsurers seeing the same zip still get the same spans. The pack is the shared object.

Do not upload a live client pack to the marketing site. Production ingest, when you have a tenant, is a read-only mailbox grant, not a web form on this page. The inspector exists so you can see conflict versus gap without inventing a customer.

The test is the same test as hours clause. If a vendor's demo on ACME Construction Ltd emits one TIV and a hours clause, they have failed, even if the paragraph sounds careful. Two TIV spans and an empty hours field is the behaviour to buy. Walk that sample on the pack inspector.