Cyber insurance renewal evidence package: source-linked, freshness-dated, and underwriter-reviewable.
Valty combines source-connected control data with structured policy terms to produce an underwriter-reviewable package. CFOs and CISOs can inspect likely-loss exposure against limits, exclusions, and uninsured tail before submission; Valty does not claim carrier acceptance or a premium outcome.
Ungated renewal worksheet
Prepare the evidence. Make the gaps visible.
Use one row per system and evidence item. Replace the bracketed fields with your own records; these prompts are a blank preparation aid, not a completed assessment.
- Scope and date
- [Company, systems, renewal date, evidence as-of date]
- Accountable owner
- [Name or role, evidence reviewer, next review date]
- Broker handoff
- [Broker, questionnaire version, handoff date, disclosure approver]
| Evidence item | Attach and date | Record the gap and next step |
|---|---|---|
| Access and endpoint coverage | Dated MFA and endpoint coverage exports; include the accounts, devices and exclusions in scope. | List uncovered accounts or devices, the accountable owner and the next review date. |
| Backup configuration | Dated configuration and job records for the named system; identify retention and protected copies. | Record missing systems or failed jobs. Configuration and successful jobs do not prove restoration. |
| Restoration test | Actual test date, system and data restored, operator, result and supporting test record. | If no test record is available, mark restoration evidence missing; assign a validation owner and due date. |
| Policy questions and disclosures | Current questionnaire version and policy wording supplied by the broker or insurer. | Keep unanswered questions, evidence limits and proposed disclosures open for broker review. |
Evidence checklist — complete with your own scope, dates and owners
Access and endpoint coverage
- Attach and date
- Dated MFA and endpoint coverage exports; include the accounts, devices and exclusions in scope.
- Record the gap and next step
- List uncovered accounts or devices, the accountable owner and the next review date.
Backup configuration
- Attach and date
- Dated configuration and job records for the named system; identify retention and protected copies.
- Record the gap and next step
- Record missing systems or failed jobs. Configuration and successful jobs do not prove restoration.
Restoration test
- Attach and date
- Actual test date, system and data restored, operator, result and supporting test record.
- Record the gap and next step
- If no test record is available, mark restoration evidence missing; assign a validation owner and due date.
Policy questions and disclosures
- Attach and date
- Current questionnaire version and policy wording supplied by the broker or insurer.
- Record the gap and next step
- Keep unanswered questions, evidence limits and proposed disclosures open for broker review.
Before handoff, reconcile each answer to its source, record unresolved gaps and obtain your disclosure approval. Share sensitive evidence through an agreed secure channel. Your broker or insurer determines the submission requirements; this worksheet does not establish coverage, carrier acceptance or a premium outcome.
See how a configuration record and a restoration gap stay distinct →
An underwriter-reviewable evidence package, not a questionnaire sprint.
Evidence
Source-linked control evidence with collection mode, freshness, and attestation tier so a reviewer can weigh reliance without treating self-attestation as source proof.
Proof pack
An exportable evidence package organized by the control categories underwriters score: MFA, EDR, backup, IR plan, and network segmentation.
Fresh
Underwriter evidence requests increasingly specify evidence collection date. Stale controls and point-in-time assessments create coverage gaps at renewal.
The questions this page needs to answer before anyone treats a number as fact.
What evidence does the underwriter need, and how do we produce it without a manual evidence sprint?
Insurance renewal is increasingly evidence-driven. CFOs need an evidence package that can be produced from connected source systems, not assembled from spreadsheets and assessment PDFs weeks before the renewal date.
Which controls are the underwriter scoring and what does current evidence actually show?
CISOs need to see the actual control state, source-linked, freshness-dated, and organized by underwriter scoring category, before the renewal questionnaire locks in claims that cannot be substantiated.
What separates evidence the underwriter accepts from evidence they treat as self-attestation?
The package distinguishes source-verified evidence (scanner, cloud API, identity provider), assisted attestation, and manual self-certification. Source tier gives the reviewer reliance context; it does not predict carrier acceptance or premium outcome.
Controls the underwriter scores, with source, freshness, and collection mode attached.
The renewal package pairs control evidence with structured limits, retentions, coverage terms, and exclusions. It compares modeled likely loss with the policy response, surfaces the uninsured tail, and keeps every control tied to its source and collection date.
- Policy PDF and structured terms: limits, retention, coverage, and exclusions
- Likely-loss exposure compared with limits, exclusions, and uninsured tail
- Carrier and shared-exclusion concentration across the portfolio
- MFA, EDR, backup, IR plan, and segmentation evidence with collection date
- Unsupported policy term remains unsupported, never valued as zero
Evidence package reflects the state of connected source systems at the time of export. Coverage scope is bounded by source connector access agreed at setup. Valty does not issue insurance opinions or guarantee underwriter acceptance of any evidence package.
Source controls in. Underwriter-reviewable policy stress and evidence out.
The renewal workflow connects source systems and policy terms to a publication-gated export, so CISOs and CFOs can review the evidence and uninsured tail before renewal without implying an underwriting decision.
Controls organized by underwriter scoring category
Valty organizes control evidence by the categories underwriters weight most heavily: multi-factor authentication, endpoint detection and response, backup and recovery, incident response plan, and network segmentation.
Underwriter control taxonomyEvidence tied to source system with collection date
Each control is evidence-backed to its source: identity provider signals for MFA, EDR platform API for endpoint coverage, backup system logs for recovery cadence. Collection date and freshness are attached.
Source adapter → evidence objectCollection mode visible to underwriter
The evidence package labels each control as automated (source-verified), assisted (agent-supported), or manual (owner-attested), so the underwriter can apply appropriate reliance without guessing.
Automated / assisted / manual evidence modePolicy stress and renewal evidence export with claim state
The pack includes publishable evidence, likely-loss-versus-limit treatment, exclusions, and uninsured tail. Stale controls or unsupported policy terms remain in the blocked ledger.
Publication-gated renewal exportShow how each record was collected. Let the reviewer assess its weight.
T1–T4 are Valty evidence-collection labels: hardware-attested, API-verified, agent-assisted and owner-attested. They are not an insurer rating system or a universal hierarchy of reliance. Source, scope, freshness and the test performed determine what a record can support; each recipient decides whether to accept it.
Source-verified (T1–T2)
Record the actual basis: hardware attestation for T1 or provider API evidence for T2. Preserve collection time and scope. A collected setting is not automatically a test of control effectiveness.
- MFA enforcement from IdP API
- EDR coverage from endpoint platform
- Backup cadence from storage API
Agent-assisted (T3)
Evidence where Valty prompts the owner, validates the response format, and records the attestation chain. Used for policy documents, vendor questionnaires, and IR plan reviews.
- IR plan version and review date
- Vendor security questionnaire intake
- Network diagram attestation
Owner-attested (T4)
Manual owner submission with reviewer and date recorded. Labeled clearly in the renewal package, so underwriters see it as self-attestation, not source-verified evidence.
- Physical control statement
- Exception documentation
- Manual policy sign-off
Renewal evidence claims and their proof requirements.
Each renewal claim requires source, collection mode, and freshness before it enters the evidence package. The blocked-claim ledger discloses gaps honestly rather than burying them in questionnaire language.
Arrive at renewal with source-linked evidence, not a questionnaire sprint.
Valty organizes control evidence and policy terms, labels each claim by collection mode and freshness, and packages the review with a clean blocked-claim ledger. It reduces manual assembly without claiming an underwriting outcome.
Valty is in the design-partner stage. All financial figures are illustrative decision-support estimates with method, confidence, and limitation stated adjacent to the claim. No fabricated customers or published pricing.