A nine week scramble across four systems could become a two day, board-ready pack.
Built with a Head of Finance & Actuarial in mind
The kind of team this fits: a Singapore life insurer with a multi product portfolio, roughly USD 2.4bn GWP, 45 FTE across finance and actuarial.
Nine weeks of quarterly close spent reconciling four separate systems by hand means the board pack gets built from last quarter's confidence in this quarter's numbers, because there was never time to double check them properly.
A photo or illustration of what this looks like today, before any of this runs.
Not a feature list. The actual sequence, from the moment the case lands to the moment someone signs it.
Premium forecasting and IBNR reserving run off the same live data all quarter, not four systems reconciled at the end.
The numbers agree because they came from the same place, not because someone spent three weeks making them agree.
Loss ratio, expense ratio and combined ratio are ready before the board meeting, not the night before it.
Screenshot of a Zen Studio canvas configured for a workflow like this one.
Finance still owns every number that reaches the board. What changes is how much of the quarter gets spent chasing them instead of using them.
Illustrative, based on the shape of a workflow like this one. The real number depends on the case, the team, and how it's configured.
Screenshot of the Zen Pilot dashboard or explainability panel for a run of this workflow.
For a head of finance & actuarial, a workflow like this starts as a conversation with Zara, describing the process in plain language and getting a first draft of the team back in the same session. Zen Studio is where engineering opens that draft, sets the guardrails node by node, and versions it before it goes live. Zen Pilot is where it actually runs, and where anyone can watch a case move through it in real time, node by node, with the reasoning attached.