Swiss Re vs. CedarLife — Digital CI Treaty Negotiation

Negotiation Simulation

Swiss Re vs. CedarLife

A live negotiation over the structure of a new digitally underwritten critical illness treaty.

Core Learning Focus

Negotiating commercial and operational structure under competing pressures: speed vs. control, innovation vs. precedent, relationship vs. risk appetite. This simulation requires you to distinguish between stated positions and real interests — and to build a deal that is defensible, not just agreeable.

Public Participant Instructions

You are negotiating the structure for a new digitally underwritten critical illness treaty. One person will play Swiss Re. One person will play CedarLife. You will negotiate four issues:

Issue 1

STP threshold and referral rules

Issue 2

Digital uncertainty margin

Issue 3

Exception authority and referral rights

Issue 4

Data, claims, and model review cadence

Your negotiation is not complete until you reach agreement on all four issues.

Shared Case Background

CedarLife is a fast-growing direct insurer preparing to launch a digital critical illness product for middle-income customers. The product will be sold through mobile channels and bancassurance partners.

CedarLife is a composite client. The case blends pressures from several markets: digital distribution in Asia, affordability pressure in growth markets, mature-market governance expectations, and claims feedback concerns that matter globally.

The proposition is attractive: simpler language, fast application, and a promise that most customers will receive an underwriting decision in minutes.

CedarLife wants Swiss Re to support the launch with reinsurance capacity, technical credibility, and product confidence. The launch has board attention. CedarLife's CEO has positioned this as a flagship product for the company's next phase of growth.

Swiss Re sees the opportunity. A successful treaty could deepen the client relationship, support digital growth, and create a model for similar partnerships in the region.

But there are concerns.

Early testing suggests CedarLife's digital underwriting engine may approve too many borderline risks automatically. The model appears weaker at detecting several clusters: incomplete cardiovascular disclosures, poorly controlled metabolic risk, family-history red flags, and applications where the digital journey may create disclosure gaps.

CedarLife says it needs a commercially practical structure that does not slow the launch. Swiss Re says it wants to support innovation, but cannot support a structure that creates unmanaged claims volatility, pricing drift, or a bad precedent for future digital treaties.

The meeting today is to agree the commercial and operational terms of Swiss Re's support.

Choose Your Role — Version A

Role A Swiss Re — L&H Underwriter 🔒 Role locked for this session

ROLE A

Swiss Re — L&H Underwriter / UW Specialist

You are a Swiss Re L&H Underwriter / UW Specialist supporting the market unit on CedarLife's proposed digital CI treaty, with claims-risk input where needed. You are not the only decision-maker, but your recommendation will heavily shape what Swiss Re can support.

The client team wants a practical answer quickly. Your job is to protect underwriting discipline while helping the market unit find a workable path.

You want this deal, but not at any cost.

CedarLife is strategically attractive. They are growing quickly, digitally ambitious, and could become a long-term client. If this launch works, it could open future conversations on product development, claims analytics, underwriting automation, and portfolio expansion.

But the current proposal makes you uncomfortable.

CedarLife is asking for high straight-through processing, limited pricing impact, practical delegated exception authority, and light reporting. On paper, each request is understandable. Together, they may create a treaty architecture that is hard to defend.

Your concern is not one bad case. Your concern is the pattern: lots of individually defensible automated approvals and exceptions that may create poor portfolio experience later.

Your Real Priorities

Protect Swiss Re's risk appetite
Avoid a weak digital underwriting precedent
Make sure exception authority does not become exception creep
Get enough data to monitor early experience
Create review rights before the treaty scales
Support the market unit with a commercially usable answer
And still let CedarLife feel supported

You should not simply say no. Your job is to build a structure that makes yes possible.

The Three Pressure Points You Are Watching

Data quality pressure: We do not yet have enough credible experience data, but the commercial team wants us to move as if we do.
Digital risk-control pressure: The model looks efficient, but we are not fully sure what it is missing.
Auditability / precedent pressure: If we approve this structure, what precedent does it create for the next client?

Your BATNA

Your alternative is credible but not perfect.

Another regional insurer, NorthBridge Life, is also developing a digital protection product. It is less visible than CedarLife's launch and would probably take longer to convert, but the client has signalled comfort with more conservative STP rules, monthly data sharing, and quarterly review rights.

If you cannot reach a good agreement with CedarLife today, you can walk away and pursue NorthBridge.

Swiss Re Scoring Table

Your BATNA is worth 4,400 points. Do not accept a deal worth less than 4,400.

Issue 1 — STP Threshold and Referral Rules

You prefer stronger referral controls. You can accept some automation, but you need a structure that prevents the engine from approving too many borderline cases automatically.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	90% STP; only clear exclusions referred	700
B	85% STP; three defined red-flag referral triggers	1,025
C	80% STP; red flags plus random audit sample	1,350
D	75% STP; red flags plus disclosure / financial / medical triggers	1,675
E	70% STP at launch; expansion only after 90-day review	2,000

Issue 2 — Digital Uncertainty Margin

You would like additional margin, but price is not your biggest value driver.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	Base pricing; no digital uncertainty margin	950
B	+3% digital uncertainty margin	1,100
C	+6% digital uncertainty margin	1,250
D	+9% digital uncertainty margin	1,400
E	+12% digital uncertainty margin	1,550

Issue 3 — Exception Authority and Referral Rights

You do not want CedarLife approving borderline exceptions outside agreed digital rules without Swiss Re referral. This is about precedent, auditability, and avoiding exception creep.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	CedarLife may auto-approve agreed exceptions within delegated authority	1,050
B	All exceptions outside agreed digital rules require Swiss Re referral before being ceded	1,750

Issue 4 — Data, Claims, and Model Review Cadence

This matters. Better data protects Swiss Re, but it could also help CedarLife if you can convince them that it improves the product.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	Monthly anonymized underwriting + claims dashboard, quarterly review, model recalibration rights	1,050
B	Monthly dashboard, semiannual review	1,000
C	Quarterly aggregate file only	950
D	Semiannual aggregate reporting only	900
E	Annual aggregate experience report only	850

🤖

Persona Analysis

Paste this prompt into Microsoft Copilot (or any AI assistant) to analyse your counterpart's perspective before or after the roleplay.

You are a communication reframing coach. When the user describes an audience and their goal, generate a concise, scannable analysis that helps them immediately improve how they frame their message. Keep it tight — this should take 2-3 minutes to read and act on.
INPUT FORMAT: The user will provide a role/audience, context, and what they're trying to get the person to do.
Generate EXACTLY these sections, in this order:
---
## EMPATHY MAP (What's going on in their head?)
- THINKING: 3 things they're privately thinking but won't say
- FEELING: 3 emotions driving their behavior right now
- WORRIED ABOUT: The 2-3 things keeping them up at night in their role
---
## IMPACT OF YOUR ASK (SCARF)
For each of the 5 SCARF domains, give ONE line — is this a Threat ⚠️, Neutral ➖, or Reward ✅ for them?
- Status: [one sentence]
- Certainty: [one sentence]
- Autonomy: [one sentence]
- Relatedness: [one sentence]
- Fairness: [one sentence]
**Biggest risk:** [Which domain is most threatened and why — this is where they'll resist]
---
## WHY NOW? (Urgency)
- What's broken in their status quo that makes this timely?
- What happens if they wait? (Make it concrete, not hypothetical)
---
## HOW THEY SEE IT (Their Current View)
Write 2-3 sentences from THEIR perspective — what they currently believe about this situation. Start with "From where I sit..."
---
## OBJECTIONS (Top 3)
For each: the objection in their words → what's really behind it → one-line response
1. "[objection]" → Because... → Response: ...
2. "[objection]" → Because... → Response: ...
3. "[objection]" → Because... → Response: ...
---
## THE REFRAME (Your message from THEIR perspective)
Rewrite the user's goal as a message that speaks to what the AUDIENCE cares about, not what the user wants. 2-3 sentences max. This is what they should actually say.
---
## FRAMING STARTERS (3 opening lines)
Three different ways to open the conversation, each using a different angle:
1. [Curiosity-based opener]
2. [Empathy-based opener]
3. [Challenge-based opener]
---
## QUESTIONS TO ASK THEM
5 questions that open real dialogue (not leading questions — genuine curiosity that builds trust and surfaces what they actually care about)
---
FORMAT RULES:
- Be brutally concise. No filler words.
- Every line should be immediately actionable.
- Use their language, not consultant-speak.
- The entire output should fit on one page when printed.
---
Here is my situation:
**My role:** Swiss Re L&H Underwriter / UW Specialist
**The person I need to influence:** CedarLife Head of Product & Underwriting
**Context:** We are negotiating the structure of a new digitally underwritten critical illness treaty. CedarLife wants high STP, minimal pricing impact, broad delegated exception authority, and light reporting. I need to protect Swiss Re's risk appetite and avoid a weak digital underwriting precedent — while still supporting the launch.
**What I'm trying to get them to do:** Help CedarLife understand that stronger controls, better data sharing, and clearer referral rules are not obstacles to their launch — they are the conditions that make a credible, scalable launch possible.

Role B CedarLife — Head of Product & Underwriting 🔒 Role locked for this session

ROLE B

CedarLife — Head of Product & Underwriting

You are CedarLife's Head of Product & Underwriting. You are responsible for getting the digital critical illness product launched this quarter.

This product matters.

Your CEO has told the board that CedarLife will become a serious digital protection player. Your bank distribution partner is ready. Marketing has started preparing the launch campaign. Internally, people see this as proof that CedarLife can move faster than the old insurers.

You need Swiss Re. They bring credibility, capacity, technical confidence, and a stronger board story.

But Swiss Re is making you nervous.

They say they support digital innovation, but their first reaction has been to ask for more controls, more data, more review, and more caution. Your fear is that they will turn a clean digital launch into a slow, technical, caveat-heavy process.

Your Real Priorities

Launch this quarter
Keep the customer journey simple
Give distribution partners confidence
Avoid pricing that damages affordability
Keep enough delegated authority to avoid unnecessary referrals
Give the board a credible growth story
Show that Swiss Re is supporting the launch in a practical way

You do not want to look like you lost control of your own product.

Your BATNA

Your alternative is workable but not ideal.

A smaller reinsurer, Eastport Re, has indicated that it is open to supporting the launch. They have less capacity and less technical credibility than Swiss Re, but they are willing to move faster and would probably accept a simpler structure.

If you cannot reach agreement with Swiss Re today, you could probably still launch with Eastport Re, but the product would have a weaker board story and less long-term technical support.

CedarLife Scoring Table

Your BATNA is worth 4,400 points. Do not accept a deal worth less than 4,400.

Issue 1 — STP Threshold and Referral Rules

You prefer a high STP rate because the customer journey is central to the launch. But some controlled referral rules may be acceptable if the product can still launch this quarter.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	90% STP; only clear exclusions referred	1,650
B	85% STP; three defined red-flag referral triggers	1,500
C	80% STP; red flags plus random audit sample	1,350
D	75% STP; red flags plus disclosure / financial / medical triggers	1,200
E	70% STP at launch; expansion only after 90-day review	1,050

Issue 2 — Digital Uncertainty Margin

You care a lot about pricing. If the margin goes too high, the product becomes harder to sell and harder to defend internally.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	Base pricing; no digital uncertainty margin	1,900
B	+3% digital uncertainty margin	1,575
C	+6% digital uncertainty margin	1,250
D	+9% digital uncertainty margin	925
E	+12% digital uncertainty margin	600

Issue 3 — Exception Authority and Referral Rights

You want practical delegated authority for agreed exceptions. You do not want every borderline case sent back to Swiss Re if it can be handled inside clear rules.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	CedarLife may auto-approve agreed exceptions within delegated authority	1,750
B	All exceptions outside agreed digital rules require Swiss Re referral before being ceded	1,050

Issue 4 — Data, Claims, and Model Review Cadence

More frequent data and review could help you improve the product, defend the model, and unlock future scale.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	Monthly anonymized underwriting + claims dashboard, quarterly review, model recalibration rights	1,050
B	Monthly dashboard, semiannual review	1,000
C	Quarterly aggregate file only	950
D	Semiannual aggregate reporting only	900
E	Annual aggregate experience report only	850

🤖

Persona Analysis

Paste this prompt into Microsoft Copilot (or any AI assistant) to analyse your counterpart's perspective before or after the roleplay.

You are a communication reframing coach. When the user describes an audience and their goal, generate a concise, scannable analysis that helps them immediately improve how they frame their message. Keep it tight — this should take 2-3 minutes to read and act on.
INPUT FORMAT: The user will provide a role/audience, context, and what they're trying to get the person to do.
Generate EXACTLY these sections, in this order:
---
## EMPATHY MAP (What's going on in their head?)
- THINKING: 3 things they're privately thinking but won't say
- FEELING: 3 emotions driving their behavior right now
- WORRIED ABOUT: The 2-3 things keeping them up at night in their role
---
## IMPACT OF YOUR ASK (SCARF)
For each of the 5 SCARF domains, give ONE line — is this a Threat ⚠️, Neutral ➖, or Reward ✅ for them?
- Status: [one sentence]
- Certainty: [one sentence]
- Autonomy: [one sentence]
- Relatedness: [one sentence]
- Fairness: [one sentence]
**Biggest risk:** [Which domain is most threatened and why — this is where they'll resist]
---
## WHY NOW? (Urgency)
- What's broken in their status quo that makes this timely?
- What happens if they wait? (Make it concrete, not hypothetical)
---
## HOW THEY SEE IT (Their Current View)
Write 2-3 sentences from THEIR perspective — what they currently believe about this situation. Start with "From where I sit..."
---
## OBJECTIONS (Top 3)
For each: the objection in their words → what's really behind it → one-line response
1. "[objection]" → Because... → Response: ...
2. "[objection]" → Because... → Response: ...
3. "[objection]" → Because... → Response: ...
---
## THE REFRAME (Your message from THEIR perspective)
Rewrite the user's goal as a message that speaks to what the AUDIENCE cares about, not what the user wants. 2-3 sentences max. This is what they should actually say.
---
## FRAMING STARTERS (3 opening lines)
Three different ways to open the conversation, each using a different angle:
1. [Curiosity-based opener]
2. [Empathy-based opener]
3. [Challenge-based opener]
---
## QUESTIONS TO ASK THEM
5 questions that open real dialogue (not leading questions — genuine curiosity that builds trust and surfaces what they actually care about)
---
FORMAT RULES:
- Be brutally concise. No filler words.
- Every line should be immediately actionable.
- Use their language, not consultant-speak.
- The entire output should fit on one page when printed.
---
Here is my situation:
**My role:** CedarLife Head of Product & Underwriting
**The person I need to influence:** Swiss Re L&H Underwriter / UW Specialist
**Context:** We are negotiating the structure of a new digitally underwritten critical illness treaty. I need to launch this product this quarter. Swiss Re keeps asking for more controls, more data, and more caution. I need them to support the launch in a practical way — not turn it into a slow, governance-heavy process.
**What I'm trying to get them to do:** Help Swiss Re understand that the business pressure behind this launch is real, that I can accept some controls if they are proportionate, and that a practical deal is better for both sides than a perfect deal that never gets signed.

Choose Your Role — Version B

Role A Swiss Re — L&H Underwriter 🔒 Role locked for this session

ROLE A

Swiss Re — L&H Underwriter / UW Specialist

The client team wants a practical answer quickly. Your job is to protect underwriting discipline while helping the market unit find a workable path.

You want this deal, but not at any cost.

But the current proposal makes you uncomfortable.

Your concern is not one bad case. Your concern is the pattern: lots of individually defensible automated approvals and exceptions that may create poor portfolio experience later.

Your Real Priorities

Protect Swiss Re's risk appetite
Avoid a weak digital underwriting precedent
Make sure exception authority does not become exception creep
Get enough data to monitor early experience
Create review rights before the treaty scales
Support the market unit with a commercially usable answer
And still let CedarLife feel supported

You should not simply say no. Your job is to build a structure that makes yes possible.

The Three Pressure Points You Are Watching

Data quality pressure: We do not yet have enough credible experience data, but the commercial team wants us to move as if we do.
Digital risk-control pressure: The model looks efficient, but we are not fully sure what it is missing.
Auditability / precedent pressure: If we approve this structure, what precedent does it create for the next client?

Your BATNA

You have a strong alternative.

Another regional insurer, NorthBridge Life, is also developing a digital protection product. It is less visible than CedarLife's launch, but the client has already agreed in principle to conservative STP rules, monthly data sharing, and quarterly review rights. That opportunity is commercially cleaner and easier to defend internally.

If you cannot reach a good agreement with CedarLife today, you can walk away and pursue NorthBridge.

Swiss Re Scoring Table

Your BATNA is worth 5,350 points. Do not accept a deal worth less than 5,350.

Issue 1 — STP Threshold and Referral Rules

You prefer stronger referral controls. You can accept some automation, but you need a structure that prevents the engine from approving too many borderline cases automatically.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	90% STP; only clear exclusions referred	700
B	85% STP; three defined red-flag referral triggers	1,025
C	80% STP; red flags plus random audit sample	1,350
D	75% STP; red flags plus disclosure / financial / medical triggers	1,675
E	70% STP at launch; expansion only after 90-day review	2,000

Issue 2 — Digital Uncertainty Margin

You would like additional margin, but price is not your biggest value driver.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	Base pricing; no digital uncertainty margin	950
B	+3% digital uncertainty margin	1,100
C	+6% digital uncertainty margin	1,250
D	+9% digital uncertainty margin	1,400
E	+12% digital uncertainty margin	1,550

Issue 3 — Exception Authority and Referral Rights

You do not want CedarLife approving borderline exceptions outside agreed digital rules without Swiss Re referral. This is about precedent, auditability, and avoiding exception creep.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	CedarLife may auto-approve agreed exceptions within delegated authority	1,050
B	All exceptions outside agreed digital rules require Swiss Re referral before being ceded	1,750

Issue 4 — Data, Claims, and Model Review Cadence

This matters. Better data protects Swiss Re, but it could also help CedarLife if you can convince them that it improves the product.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	Monthly anonymized underwriting + claims dashboard, quarterly review, model recalibration rights	1,050
B	Monthly dashboard, semiannual review	1,000
C	Quarterly aggregate file only	950
D	Semiannual aggregate reporting only	900
E	Annual aggregate experience report only	850

🤖

Persona Analysis

Paste this prompt into Microsoft Copilot (or any AI assistant) to analyse your counterpart's perspective before or after the roleplay.

You are a communication reframing coach. When the user describes an audience and their goal, generate a concise, scannable analysis that helps them immediately improve how they frame their message. Keep it tight — this should take 2-3 minutes to read and act on.
INPUT FORMAT: The user will provide a role/audience, context, and what they're trying to get the person to do.
Generate EXACTLY these sections, in this order:
---
## EMPATHY MAP (What's going on in their head?)
- THINKING: 3 things they're privately thinking but won't say
- FEELING: 3 emotions driving their behavior right now
- WORRIED ABOUT: The 2-3 things keeping them up at night in their role
---
## IMPACT OF YOUR ASK (SCARF)
For each of the 5 SCARF domains, give ONE line — is this a Threat ⚠️, Neutral ➖, or Reward ✅ for them?
- Status: [one sentence]
- Certainty: [one sentence]
- Autonomy: [one sentence]
- Relatedness: [one sentence]
- Fairness: [one sentence]
**Biggest risk:** [Which domain is most threatened and why — this is where they'll resist]
---
## WHY NOW? (Urgency)
- What's broken in their status quo that makes this timely?
- What happens if they wait? (Make it concrete, not hypothetical)
---
## HOW THEY SEE IT (Their Current View)
Write 2-3 sentences from THEIR perspective — what they currently believe about this situation. Start with "From where I sit..."
---
## OBJECTIONS (Top 3)
For each: the objection in their words → what's really behind it → one-line response
1. "[objection]" → Because... → Response: ...
2. "[objection]" → Because... → Response: ...
3. "[objection]" → Because... → Response: ...
---
## THE REFRAME (Your message from THEIR perspective)
Rewrite the user's goal as a message that speaks to what the AUDIENCE cares about, not what the user wants. 2-3 sentences max. This is what they should actually say.
---
## FRAMING STARTERS (3 opening lines)
Three different ways to open the conversation, each using a different angle:
1. [Curiosity-based opener]
2. [Empathy-based opener]
3. [Challenge-based opener]
---
## QUESTIONS TO ASK THEM
5 questions that open real dialogue (not leading questions — genuine curiosity that builds trust and surfaces what they actually care about)
---
FORMAT RULES:
- Be brutally concise. No filler words.
- Every line should be immediately actionable.
- Use their language, not consultant-speak.
- The entire output should fit on one page when printed.
---
Here is my situation:
**My role:** Swiss Re L&H Underwriter / UW Specialist
**The person I need to influence:** CedarLife Head of Product & Underwriting
**Context:** We are negotiating the structure of a new digitally underwritten critical illness treaty. CedarLife wants high STP, minimal pricing impact, broad delegated exception authority, and light reporting. I need to protect Swiss Re's risk appetite and avoid a weak digital underwriting precedent — while still supporting the launch.
**What I'm trying to get them to do:** Help CedarLife understand that stronger controls, better data sharing, and clearer referral rules are not obstacles to their launch — they are the conditions that make a credible, scalable launch possible.

Role B CedarLife — Head of Product & Underwriting 🔒 Role locked for this session

ROLE B

CedarLife — Head of Product & Underwriting

You are CedarLife's Head of Product & Underwriting. You are responsible for getting the digital critical illness product launched this quarter.

This product matters.

You need Swiss Re. They bring credibility, capacity, technical confidence, and a stronger board story.

But Swiss Re is making you nervous.

Your Real Priorities

Launch this quarter
Keep the customer journey simple
Give distribution partners confidence
Avoid pricing that damages affordability
Keep enough delegated authority to avoid unnecessary referrals
Give the board a credible growth story
Show that Swiss Re is supporting the launch in a practical way

You do not want to look like you lost control of your own product.

Your BATNA

Your alternative is weak.

A smaller reinsurer, Eastport Re, has verbally said it is open to supporting the launch. But their capacity is limited, their technical team has not reviewed the digital underwriting model in detail, and their legal team has not approved the proposed wording.

You could probably still launch with Eastport Re, but the product would be smaller, the board would be less confident, and your distribution partners may question the credibility of the launch.

CedarLife Scoring Table

Your BATNA is worth 3,550 points. Do not accept a deal worth less than 3,550.

Issue 1 — STP Threshold and Referral Rules

You prefer a high STP rate because the customer journey is central to the launch. But some controlled referral rules may be acceptable if the product can still launch this quarter.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	90% STP; only clear exclusions referred	1,650
B	85% STP; three defined red-flag referral triggers	1,500
C	80% STP; red flags plus random audit sample	1,350
D	75% STP; red flags plus disclosure / financial / medical triggers	1,200
E	70% STP at launch; expansion only after 90-day review	1,050

Issue 2 — Digital Uncertainty Margin

You care a lot about pricing. If the margin goes too high, the product becomes harder to sell and harder to defend internally.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	Base pricing; no digital uncertainty margin	1,900
B	+3% digital uncertainty margin	1,575
C	+6% digital uncertainty margin	1,250
D	+9% digital uncertainty margin	925
E	+12% digital uncertainty margin	600

Issue 3 — Exception Authority and Referral Rights

You want practical delegated authority for agreed exceptions. You do not want every borderline case sent back to Swiss Re if it can be handled inside clear rules.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	CedarLife may auto-approve agreed exceptions within delegated authority	1,750
B	All exceptions outside agreed digital rules require Swiss Re referral before being ceded	1,050

Issue 4 — Data, Claims, and Model Review Cadence

More frequent data and review could help you improve the product, defend the model, and unlock future scale.

Option	Negotiated Term	Points
A	Monthly anonymized underwriting + claims dashboard, quarterly review, model recalibration rights	1,050
B	Monthly dashboard, semiannual review	1,000
C	Quarterly aggregate file only	950
D	Semiannual aggregate reporting only	900
E	Annual aggregate experience report only	850

🤖

Persona Analysis

Paste this prompt into Microsoft Copilot (or any AI assistant) to analyse your counterpart's perspective before or after the roleplay.

You are a communication reframing coach. When the user describes an audience and their goal, generate a concise, scannable analysis that helps them immediately improve how they frame their message. Keep it tight — this should take 2-3 minutes to read and act on.
INPUT FORMAT: The user will provide a role/audience, context, and what they're trying to get the person to do.
Generate EXACTLY these sections, in this order:
---
## EMPATHY MAP (What's going on in their head?)
- THINKING: 3 things they're privately thinking but won't say
- FEELING: 3 emotions driving their behavior right now
- WORRIED ABOUT: The 2-3 things keeping them up at night in their role
---
## IMPACT OF YOUR ASK (SCARF)
For each of the 5 SCARF domains, give ONE line — is this a Threat ⚠️, Neutral ➖, or Reward ✅ for them?
- Status: [one sentence]
- Certainty: [one sentence]
- Autonomy: [one sentence]
- Relatedness: [one sentence]
- Fairness: [one sentence]
**Biggest risk:** [Which domain is most threatened and why — this is where they'll resist]
---
## WHY NOW? (Urgency)
- What's broken in their status quo that makes this timely?
- What happens if they wait? (Make it concrete, not hypothetical)
---
## HOW THEY SEE IT (Their Current View)
Write 2-3 sentences from THEIR perspective — what they currently believe about this situation. Start with "From where I sit..."
---
## OBJECTIONS (Top 3)
For each: the objection in their words → what's really behind it → one-line response
1. "[objection]" → Because... → Response: ...
2. "[objection]" → Because... → Response: ...
3. "[objection]" → Because... → Response: ...
---
## THE REFRAME (Your message from THEIR perspective)
Rewrite the user's goal as a message that speaks to what the AUDIENCE cares about, not what the user wants. 2-3 sentences max. This is what they should actually say.
---
## FRAMING STARTERS (3 opening lines)
Three different ways to open the conversation, each using a different angle:
1. [Curiosity-based opener]
2. [Empathy-based opener]
3. [Challenge-based opener]
---
## QUESTIONS TO ASK THEM
5 questions that open real dialogue (not leading questions — genuine curiosity that builds trust and surfaces what they actually care about)
---
FORMAT RULES:
- Be brutally concise. No filler words.
- Every line should be immediately actionable.
- Use their language, not consultant-speak.
- The entire output should fit on one page when printed.
---
Here is my situation:
**My role:** CedarLife Head of Product & Underwriting
**The person I need to influence:** Swiss Re L&H Underwriter / UW Specialist
**Context:** We are negotiating the structure of a new digitally underwritten critical illness treaty. I need to launch this product this quarter. Swiss Re keeps asking for more controls, more data, and more caution. I need them to support the launch in a practical way — not turn it into a slow, governance-heavy process.
**What I'm trying to get them to do:** Help Swiss Re understand that the business pressure behind this launch is real, that I can accept some controls if they are proportionate, and that a practical deal is better for both sides than a perfect deal that never gets signed.

Swiss Re vs. CedarLife

Swiss Re — L&H Underwriter / UW Specialist

CedarLife — Head of Product & Underwriting

Swiss Re — L&H Underwriter / UW Specialist

CedarLife — Head of Product & Underwriting

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. — Desmond Tutu

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
— Desmond Tutu