Cyber insurance questionnaires, answered from evidence
Renewal season means every client sends the same set of questions about MFA, backups and patching. Answering them from memory is slow, and answering them wrongly can void cover.
The problem with insurance questionnaires
Insurers ask specific, checkable questions: is MFA enforced for all users, are backups tested, how quickly are critical patches applied. Answers that were true last year, or that were true for most users, create real exposure at claim time. The MSP is usually the one filling them in.
How Graften fills them in
Graften maps collected audit data to the question sets used by Coalition, Chubb CyberEdge, Emergence Insurance and a generic Australian questionnaire. Each answer is rated high, medium or low confidence based on how fresh and how complete the underlying data is. Low-confidence answers are flagged for manual review before anything is submitted.
The value is in what it refuses to guess. Where Graften has no measurement, the answer is flagged rather than filled with a comfortable default, so the form you sign matches the evidence you hold.
Evidence to back the answers
- Time-limited evidence links an insurer or broker can open without a Graften account.
- An insurance posture view per client, so you can see weak spots before the renewal, not during it.
- The same underlying scores feed the client report, so what the client reads and what the insurer is told agree.
Frequently asked questions
Which insurers' questionnaires are supported?
Coalition, Chubb CyberEdge, Emergence Insurance and a generic Australian question set at present.
Can I submit the output without reviewing it?
You should not. Low-confidence answers are flagged precisely because they need a human to confirm them before submission, and the signatory remains responsible for the answers.