Scenarios sit in risk. Underwriting prices to the treaty and the rate. The signal does not reach the desk in a form it can use.
Bind-time data does not carry the fields reserving needs. Reserves are set on a loss shape the desk did not price against.
Reserving and capital are built on different loss shapes. Nobody reconciles them.
Outputs reach the board as summaries, not trade-offs. The minute records that climate was considered, not a decision that could have gone the other way.
The reserve is a book entry; the assets sit on the balance sheet as an investment position, held by no function in the chain at all.
Materiality defined in one place, decisions made in another. Four working definitions of 'material', one per function.
Capital models calibrated for peak peril. Losses now come from accumulation: so-called secondary perils drive the majority.
The cause beneath all five breaks. Not analytical but structural: the cross-functional architecture does not exist. SS5/25 §4.134 is the paragraph the chain is read against.
The gap is not analytical. It is a chain with five breaks in it, and no owner.
The analysis has largely been done. What it does not do is travel. A scenario should run from risk through underwriting, reserving and capital to the board, and on to the assets that back the reserves. In most firms it breaks at every handoff.