Corrections

The AI Omnibus was adopted. This site said it was not. SUPERSEDES the 15 August entry on Digital Omnibus status.

Where: 58 pages, including the site-wide banner, the market tracker, the complete market guide and the 2 August enforcement article

This is the largest correction on this page and it supersedes entry c-2026-08-15-13 above, which is left standing as written because a log that gets rewritten is not a log. That entry recorded that the Digital Omnibus deferral had not been formally adopted before 2 August 2026 and that the EU AI Act high-risk obligations for Annex III systems had therefore entered into application on that date. That was wrong. The AI Omnibus entered into force on 27 July 2026, six days before the deadline. Annex III high-risk obligations now apply from 2 December 2027 and Annex I obligations from 2 August 2028. What did apply on 2 August 2026 is the transparency layer including Article 50, the governance rules, and enforcement responsibility, which the AI Office and the national authorities have held since that date. The site-wide banner, which carried a superseded "trilogue 28 April 2026" line on 46 pages and four other incompatible variants across the rest, has been replaced with one current form. An article whose entire thesis was that the deferral had failed has been rewritten around what actually happened and carries its own correction note at the top.

Verified at: digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu

AIUC market-size projection: fabricated

Where: Coalition affirmative AI coverage and Counterpart affirmative AI coverage

Both pages stated that the Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company projects the AI insurance category at near-zero in 2023 growing toward USD 500 billion by 2030, one of them adding that the estimate is "cited by multiple Lloyd's market briefings". No market-size figure of any kind is published anywhere on aiuc.com. Both statements have been deleted. The directional argument underneath them survives without a forecast, because it can be counted rather than estimated: the number of carriers willing to put an affirmative AI trigger in writing was zero in 2023.

Verified at: aiuc.com

Beazley and QBE sublimit figures, and a named individual

Where: The 2026 E&O bifurcation, Lloyd's London market capacity, the market map and the carrier matrix

This site stated that Beazley was developing AI sublimit language capping AI-related payouts at approximately 10 percent of policy limits, and attributed confirmation of that wording to a named head of cyber underwriting management in April 2026. It also stated that draft QBE wording restricts LLMjacking losses to approximately GBP 188,000 on a policy with GBP 3.8 million of limits. Both rest on trade reporting. Neither is published at beazley.com or qbe.com. What QBE does publish points the other way: LLMjacking Protection as an affirmative coverage grant inside an AI-focused cyber endorsement, responding to the service fees an attacker runs up on a hijacked model and the cost of retraining it. Every percentage, the sterling figures and the named individual have been removed across all four pages. The structural observation, that the London market is moving toward sublimits rather than blanket exclusions, is retained and labelled as reported market direction.

Verified at: beazley.com, qbe.com

EIOPA consultation closing 30 April 2026: no such consultation

Where: Four pages including pricing benchmarks, the market map and the carrier matrix

Four passages referred to an EIOPA consultation on AI use in the European insurance sector closing in April 2026, and built expectations of forthcoming guidance on it. No AI consultation appears among EIOPA's current consultations and the closed-consultations page does not resolve. All four references have been removed and replaced with the two EIOPA facts this desk can verify: the Opinion on AI governance and risk management of 6 August 2025, and the survey on generative AI of 2 February 2026.

Verified at: eiopa.europa.eu

Lloyd's 2024 gross written premium stated in the wrong currency

Where: Lloyd's London market capacity

The article stated that the Lloyd's market wrote USD 63.7 billion of gross written premium in 2024 and cited the Lloyd's Annual Report for it. Lloyd's publishes GBP 55.5 billion, against GBP 52.1 billion in 2023, at a combined ratio of 86.9 percent and a profit before tax of GBP 9.6 billion. The USD figure is a conversion Lloyd's does not publish, presented as a Lloyd's figure. It has been replaced with the published numbers and the source link.

Verified at: lloyds.com

Corgi described as a licensed carrier when it publishes that it is not

Where: The market map and the carrier matrix

Corgi was described as the "first full-stack AI-native licensed insurance carrier for startups". corgi.insure states that Corgi Insurance Services, Inc. is a licensed insurance producer and acts as the programme administrator, not the insurer. On pages whose readers are deciding who carries their risk, that distinction is the whole point, and it has been corrected. An ARR figure above USD 40 million, a named investor list and a July 2025 regulatory approval date, all sourced to trade press and one of them to Wikipedia, are not published by Corgi and have been removed. The USD 108 million fundraise is announced on Corgi's own site and is retained.

Verified at: corgi.insure

A claim that Munich Re references this network's own certification framework

Where: The market map and the carrier matrix

The market map stated that Agent Certified, the certification framework published by Future Proof Intelligence, which also publishes this desk, is "referenced as third-party validation evidence in Munich Re aiSure underwriting documentation". The carrier matrix listed Agent Certified among the certifications Munich Re references. Munich Re publishes nothing of the kind. This is the only self-serving fabrication found in this pass and it is recorded separately for that reason: it asserted that a named reinsurer endorses our own product. Both statements have been removed, and the market map now says plainly that no carrier has adopted Agent Certified as a named underwriting reference.

Verified at: munichre.com

The six AIUC-1 pillars were wrong, in two places

Where: What AI insurance underwriters ask

The article listed AIUC-1 as covering six dimensions: safety, reliability, alignment, interpretability, robustness and governance. The real six, published by AIUC, are data and privacy, security, safety, reliability, accountability and societal risks. Four of the six stated were invented, and the wrong list appeared in a key takeaway, in the body, in the on-page FAQ and in the FAQ structured data, which means it was being served to AI assistants in machine-readable form. The standard's actual shape, 51 requirements and 130 controls across those six pillars, is now stated. The description of AIUC-1 as "the first published AI insurance certification standard" is also removed: no first-in-market claim is published.

Verified at: aiuc.com

A Lloyd's framework and consultation draft that could not be found

Where: What AI insurance underwriters ask and disclosing AI agents when applying

Both articles cited, in their reference lists, a "Lloyd's of London, Emerging Risk Group, AI underwriting framework for managing agents, consultation draft, Q1 2026". Neither could be found at lloyds.com or lmalloyds.com. A reference list is the most authoritative-looking place a claim can sit, which is exactly why an unverifiable one has to come out. Both citations have been removed and replaced with a note saying so. The market-structure description they supported, the coverholder and direct-broker routes into Lloyd's capacity, is verifiable and is retained.

Verified at: lloyds.com, lmalloyds.com

Armilla dates removed, and the USD 25 million said plainly

Where: Armilla and the Lloyd's coverholder model, Lloyd's capacity, the market map and the carrier matrix

A 30 April 2025 product launch date and a January 2026 capacity announcement date, both from trade press, could not be confirmed at armilla.ai and have been removed. Two pages used the form "USD 25 million or more per organisation"; armilla.ai publishes up to USD 25 million per organisation, and "or more" is not a hedge but a different claim. Corrected. The pages now also state directly what the trade press repeatedly gets wrong and this desk inherited: the USD 25 million is a policy limit, not a funding round. Armilla did not raise it.

Verified at: armilla.ai

ISO form numbers: kept, and labelled as reported

Where: Six pages including the carrier matrix and the three-line coverage framework

CG 40 47, CG 40 48 and CG 35 08, their titles, their edition dates and the January 2026 effective date attributed to them, come from trade press and law-firm analysis of the ISO multistate general liability filing. None could be confirmed at ISO, at Verisk, or through a state insurance filing portal, most recently on 17 August 2026. The numbers are kept, because they are how a reader finds the endorsement on their own schedule, and every page carrying them now also carries a dated sourcing note that says plainly what they rest on and warns that a search engine confirming them may be drawing on this network's own pages. Two related things were corrected in the same pass. One page dated the forms to December 2023 and gave them titles no other page used, so this site contradicted itself on both edition and title; neither is now stated as fact anywhere. And every sentence that stated the effective date flatly now says "reported".

Verified at: Not confirmed. See the sourcing notes on each page.

The carrier matrix was invisible to the machines it was written for

Where: The carrier comparison matrix

This is a structural correction rather than a factual one, but it belongs here because it had the same effect. The matrix rendered its entire table in JavaScript, so the raw HTML fetched by a crawler or an AI assistant contained an empty table body. The most citable asset on this site was invisible to the readers it most needed to reach. The rows are now pre-rendered into the HTML, a machine-readable companion is published at carriers.json carrying the same records with per-carrier source URLs and verification dates, and the page declares Dataset structured data. The companion also carries a notVerified block naming what this desk removed and why, so that what we do not know is legible too.

EIOPA survey figures

Where: European AI agent insurance market tracker

The tracker stated that EIOPA's February 2026 survey found 73 percent of respondents identifying AI governance as a material operational risk concern, up from 51 percent in an equivalent 2024 survey. Neither figure exists and there was no equivalent 2024 survey. The paragraph has been rewritten around the survey's actual findings, published 2 February 2026 across 347 undertakings in 25 countries: nearly two thirds actively using generative AI, and 49 percent with a dedicated AI policy in place, up from about 25 percent in 2023. Because the real figures measure insurers governing their own use of AI rather than enterprise demand for cover, the argument built on the invented number was replaced rather than repointed.

Verified at: eiopa.europa.eu

Armilla funding and coverage limit

Where: Multiple articles

Several pages described a USD 25 million figure as a January 2026 funding round, variously a Series A and a Series B. Armilla's own announcement describes USD 25 million as the limit of its standalone AI Liability Policy, up to that amount per organisation. Every reference to a funding round, a capital raise or a series designation has been removed. The limit is retained and now reads as a policy limit.

Verified at: armilla.ai

Armilla capacity attribution and syndicate numbers

Where: Multiple articles

Pages variously described Armilla's capacity as backed by Chaucer and Axis Capital syndicates, by Chaucer's Lloyd's syndicates 1084 and 1176, and by Chaucer Syndicate. Armilla publishes that Armilla Insurance Services is a Coverholder at Lloyd's and that its Affirmative AI Liability Insurance is underwritten by certain underwriters at Lloyd's, with the product launched with the Lloyd's underwriter Chaucer. No syndicate numbers are published by either party. All syndicate numbers have been removed and the attribution normalised to the published form.

Verified at: armilla.ai

Munich Re aiSure capacity currency

Where: Multiple articles

Capacity for the Munich Re aiSure programme distributed by Mosaic Insurance appeared as USD 15 million on some pages and EUR 15 million on others. Mosaic's announcement of 26 February 2026 states up to EUR/USD/CAD 15 million in initial capacity. All references now use that form. The stated audience, AI developers and vendors, has also been restored where pages had widened it to enterprise deployers generally.

Verified at: mosaicinsurance.com

Coalition affirmative AI endorsement scope

Where: Coalition affirmative AI coverage: European relevance

The article described Coalition's endorsement as naming three categories of covered peril: AI-generated output failures, autonomous AI decision errors, and AI-driven data manipulation. Coalition's published endorsement, dated 26 March 2024 for US Surplus and Canada cyber policies, does two narrower things: it expands the security failure and data breach definition to include an AI security event, and it expands the funds transfer fraud trigger to cover a fraudulent instruction transmitted through deepfakes or other AI technology. The description has been corrected to the published scope, and the analysis now says plainly that the endorsement does not respond to loss caused by a wrong AI output.

Verified at: coalitioninc.com

Counterpart product lines

Where: Multiple articles

The market tracker attributed Counterpart's affirmative AI coverage to management liability and directors and officers lines. Counterpart's November 2025 announcement expanded its Affirmative AI Coverage and added a technology errors and omissions insuring agreement across its miscellaneous professional liability and allied health products. The line attribution has been corrected.

Verified at: Counterpart announcement, 24 November 2025

HSB distribution and availability

Where: Multiple articles

Pages described HSB's small-business AI liability product as launched in March 2026 with a simplified underwriting process, and set out documentation requirements for it. HSB's announcement of 18 March 2026 states that the cover is added to the business policies of carriers that partner with HSB rather than sold direct to businesses, and that availability is pending insurance regulatory approval. The invented underwriting description has been removed and the distribution model stated as published.

Verified at: munichre.com/hsb

Testudo launch, capacity and territory

Where: Multiple articles

Testudo was described as launching in January 2026 with Apollo, Atrium and QBE capacity. Testudo launched on 21 January 2026 with Apollo capacity; Atrium and QBE joined on 26 February 2026, lifting the limit to USD 9.25 million per insured. The product is written for United States enterprises, which pages had not made clear. Atrium's Lloyd's syndicate number, which neither party publishes in this context, has been removed.

Verified at: testudo.co, atrium-uw.com

Chaucer syndicate capacity and ratings

Where: The Lloyd's market and AI liability

A stamp capacity growth figure, a capacity threshold in pounds, a corporate ownership attribution and two financial strength ratings were stated for Chaucer's syndicates. None could be verified at Chaucer's own domain. All have been removed. The qualitative statement of Chaucer's role as lead capacity provider on the Armilla binding authority is retained.

Verified at: chaucergroup.com

LMA AI Adoption Toolkit date

Where: The Lloyd's market and AI liability

The toolkit was dated 24 April 2026. The Lloyd's Market Association published it on 23 April 2026. The date has been corrected. The survey findings cited alongside it, 93 percent of respondents with or developing formal AI frameworks across firms representing over 60 percent of Lloyd's stamp capacity, are confirmed at the LMA's own domain and are retained.

Verified at: lmalloyds.com

AIUC name

Where: Multiple articles

AIUC appeared expanded as the AI Underwriting Consortium, the AI Underwriter Collective and the AI Underwriting Company. The organisation is the Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company. Every expansion has been normalised, and a link to a non-resolving domain has been corrected to aiuc.com.

Verified at: aiuc.com

EIOPA opinion document number

Where: Multiple articles

The EIOPA opinion on artificial intelligence governance and risk management was cited with two different document reference numbers on different pages. Neither could be verified. The reference numbers have been removed. The opinion and its date of 6 August 2025 are retained.

Verified at: eiopa.europa.eu

Digital Omnibus status

Where: Multiple articles

Several pages still described the Digital Omnibus deferral of the EU AI Act high-risk deadline as a live proposal that might yet move the 2 August 2026 date. The deferral was not formally adopted or published in the Official Journal before that date, so the original date governed and the high-risk obligations for Annex III systems entered into application on 2 August 2026. The pages have been updated to the settled position.

Verified at: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

Unverified underwriting descriptions

Where: Multiple articles

Descriptions of named carriers' internal underwriting practice, submission questionnaires, documentation checklists, premium floors and forward-looking market plans were stated as fact in several places without a published source. Where a source could not be found at the company's own domain, the specific description has been removed and replaced with reasoning from the product's published structure, which is verifiable and does not put words in a carrier's mouth.

Munich Re aiSure described as parametric

Where: 45 pages, including the aiSure article, the market map, the pricing benchmarks and the carrier comparison tool

This site described Munich Re aiSure as a parametric product, and in places as a parametric category of insurance in its own right. Munich Re does not use that word for aiSure anywhere it publishes. What Munich Re and Mosaic Insurance do publish is that aiSure is a performance guarantee for AI systems that settles on measurable performance data, and that Munich Re requires its own technical due diligence before cover is written. Those are not the same claim: a parametric trigger pays on an index without asking about the loss, which is a specific and consequential product design. The label was ours, not theirs, and it has been removed from every description of aiSure and of Munich Re. Parametric remains in use on this site where it describes the insurance model generally rather than this product, because that is ordinary industry vocabulary and accurate.

Verified at: munichre.com, mosaicinsurance.com

Article URL changed for the aiSure analysis

Where: Munich Re aiSure: AI performance insurance explained

The aiSure article was published at a URL ending munich-re-aisure-parametric-ai-insurance-europe. Correcting the body copy left the assertion standing in the address, in the page's structured data, in the sitemap and in the machine-readable index this site serves to AI assistants. A slug is an identifier rather than a sentence, but this one was being read as a sentence by the systems we publish for. The article now lives at munich-re-aisure-ai-performance-insurance-europe and the old address issues a permanent redirect to it. The title and the structured data have been changed to match.

Verified at: munichre.com

World's first claims for aiSure

Where: The aiSure article, the market topic index and the site feed

aiSure was called the world's first parametric AI performance insurance product in page titles, meta descriptions, structured data and the feed. Nobody publishes that, and a first-in-market claim about a named reinsurer's product is exactly the kind of statement that should never rest on our own enthusiasm. Every instance has been deleted rather than qualified. The same pass reduced world's first Lloyd's coverholder for Armilla to first Lloyd's coverholder dedicated exclusively to AI liability, which is the form Armilla itself publishes.

Verified at: munichre.com, armilla.ai

aiSure history and the Special Enterprise Risks attribution

Where: The aiSure article and several reference lists

Pages stated that Munich Re began writing AI performance risk in 2018, that aiSure had covered large language models since 2019, and that the product sits in a Munich Re Special Enterprise Risks division. None of that is published by Munich Re. All three have been removed. One page also dated the aiSure and Mosaic partnership to 2024 or 2025; the announcement is 26 February 2026.

Verified at: munichre.com, mosaicinsurance.com

Carrier attributed to the ElevenLabs AIUC-1 policy

Where: Homepage, and several articles

Residual statements attributed the first AIUC-1 backed policy to Munich Re, in one case saying Munich Re issued the policy on the strength of the certification. Neither the Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company nor ElevenLabs names an insurer or a reinsurer for that policy, and no limits are disclosed. Every carrier attribution has been removed. What is published, and retained, is that the policy was placed through Lloyd's of London.

Verified at: aiuc.com, elevenlabs.io

AIUC name, second pass

Where: Reference lists on several articles

Four further expansions of AIUC survived the first pass in footnotes and reference lists: AI Underwriting Council, AI Underwriting and Certification Consortium, The American AI Underwriting Collaborative, and a bare AI Underwriting Company. The company is the Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company and nothing else. One of those entries also dated the AIUC seed round to late 2024; it was July 2025, led by Nat Friedman at NFDG.

Verified at: aiuc.com

Testudo, LMA and Armilla dates

Where: Lloyd's capacity article, market map, carrier comparison tool

Three dates were checked against the parties themselves. Testudo's capacity expansion with Atrium and QBE was given as March 2026 in five places; Testudo dates it 26 February 2026 and every instance now reads that way. The LMA AI Adoption Toolkit appeared as both 23 and 24 April 2026; the Lloyd's Market Association publishes 23 April 2026. Armilla's USD 25 million was in two places still cited to a trade report headlined as a raise. The limit is verified at armilla.ai and retained; the trade citation is replaced with Armilla's own page. Armilla's announcement page carries two conflicting dates for that limit, one year apart, so this site now states the limit without a date.

Verified at: testudo.co, lmalloyds.com, armilla.ai

Hamilton Insurance Group

Where: Market map, carrier comparison tool

Hamilton Insurance Group was described as having sought regulatory clearance for AI exclusions in management liability policies. Other trade reporting describes Hamilton's position instead as a sublimit inside errors and omissions or cyber cover, which is the opposite outcome for a buyer: one removes the cover, the other caps it. Hamilton publishes nothing about AI underwriting on its own site, so neither version can be checked at the carrier. This site now states neither and says so on the page.

Verified at: no statement at hamiltongroup.com

LMA5566 is not an AI exclusion

Where: PI or cyber: the AI coverage decision guide, AI agent claims triggers, Sublimits and aggregate caps, Product Liability Directive coverage readiness

Four pages cited LMA5566 as an artificial intelligence exclusion clause, and one described an LMA5566 model endorsement providing a framework for how AI losses may be treated. One reference list carried it as LMA5566 Model AI Endorsement, London, Lloyd's Market Association, 2024, in full bibliographic form. LMA5566 is a state-backed cyber war clause. The current version of the clause states its own title on its face: War and Cyber Operation Exclusion No. 3, for use on commercial cyber insurance contracts, dated 18 January 2023. It has no AI subject. The Lloyd's Market Association's own published position is close to the opposite of what this site printed: it treats AI as already caught by the existing definition of a computer system, and describes AI-specific clause work as something still ahead. Every instance has been deleted. The invented reference-list entries have been removed rather than retitled, because there is no correct version of a citation to a document that does not exist.

Verified at: lmalloyds.com

LMA5401 to LMA5403 are the wrong clause family

Where: Does AI insurance cover systemic model failure and aggregation risk

The article described the cyber market's answer to correlated catastrophe loss as the Lloyd's Market Association's systemic cyber catastrophe exclusion clauses LMA5401 to LMA5403, effective from March 2023, and repeated that in its FAQ, its structured data and its reference list. Nine instances in all. The story is right and the identification is wrong. LMA5400 to LMA5403 are model cyber clauses for entirely different classes of business, among them Difference in Conditions, Engineering, Nuclear, Power Generation, Cargo, Energy, Fine Art and Marine. The March 2023 requirement came from a Lloyd's market bulletin covering standalone cyber policies, and the model clauses answering it are a different family. Rather than substitute one set of numbers for another, the clause numbers and the effective date have been removed and the analogy now stands on what the market required, which is what the argument actually rested on.

Verified at: lmalloyds.com, assets.lloyds.com