Engineering Blog · Post #60

Three-Score Visibility: Priority, Quality, and Appetite on Every Submission

Is it important? Is it ready? Does it fit? Three scores. Three questions. One glance.

The Problem

Underwriters make triage decisions based on incomplete signals. They might see an appetite score but not know if the submission is complete. They might see it's from a key broker but not know the effective date is 90 days away. They prioritize by urgency without considering quality, or by quality without considering strategic importance. The result: misallocated effort, missed opportunities, and inconsistent decision-making.

The InsightUW Approach

InsightUW surfaces three complementary scores on every submission detail — each answering a different question the UW needs to answer before deciding how to allocate their time.

graph LR subgraph Priority["Priority (0-100)"] P["Is it Important? Broker tier, inception, growth LOB, premium, retention, rush"] end subgraph Quality["Quality (0-100)"] Q["Is it Ready? Docs complete, data populated, cleared, classified, fresh"] end subgraph Appetite["Appetite (0-100)"] A["Does it FIT? LOB appetite, industry, territory, capacity, loss history"] end subgraph Decision["UW Decision Matrix"] D["High P + High Q + High A = Work immediately High P + Low Q = Chase info urgently Low P + High Q + High A = Good but can wait Low P + Low A = Consider declining"] end P --> D Q --> D A --> D

The Decision Matrix

Priority	Quality	Appetite	Action
High	High	High	Work immediately — best risk, most important, fully ready
High	Low	High	Chase missing info urgently — important risk but not ready
High	High	Low	Careful review — important but marginal fit
Low	High	High	Good risk, ready, but not urgent — work when bandwidth allows
Low	Low	Low	Consider declining — not important, not ready, doesn't fit

Visual Layout

All three scores appear as stacked cards in the right column of the submission detail:

Priority Score — green/amber/red with 7-factor breakdown
Quality Score — green/blue/amber/red with 7-dimension breakdown
Appetite Score — existing 0-100 with LOB fit indicator

Each card shows a large score number, tier badge, and per-factor progress bars with detail text.

LOB-Specific Example

Three submissions, three different profiles:

Submission	Priority	Quality	Appetite	Action
NovaPay (Cyber, $15M, Gallagher, 9 days)	58 Medium	60 Good	68 Moderate	Work now — inception is imminent, quality is workable
Apex Medical (D&O, $10M, Lockton, Rush)	59 Medium	64 Good	82 Strong	Work now — rush + strong fit + key broker
Ironclad Construction (WC, $1M, Lockton, 40 days)	33 Low	72 Good	60 Moderate	Good quality but low priority — work after higher-priority items

Sarah Chen sees all three in her queue. Without scores, she might start with Ironclad (it's from Lockton). With scores, she starts with NovaPay (imminent inception + growth LOB) and Apex (rush + strong appetite), leaving Ironclad for later.

What This Means for Underwriters

Complete picture — three dimensions cover importance, readiness, and fit
Eliminate guessing — data-driven triage replaces gut feel
Factor transparency — every score shows exactly which factors contributed and why
Consistent across team — all UWs use the same scoring, ensuring fairness and alignment
Dynamic — scores update as documents arrive, clearance completes, and inception dates approach

What's Next

This completes the Submission Prioritization blog series. For more InsightUW capabilities, explore our Submission Intake, Corporate Clearance, or Auto-Declination series.

Want to see three-score prioritization on your work queue? Request a demo.