Findings · measured, dated, recomputable
Do AI-liability insurers require an independent third-party audit before they will cover an AI agent?
| Programmes read directly at source | 2 |
| Require an independent accredited auditor | 1 |
| No external prerequisite stated on their own page | 1 |
| Accredited audit firms named across all programmes | 7 |
| Programmes with a public accreditation path for new auditors | 1 |
| Programmes publishing a price | 0 |
| Programmes known only from secondary sources, excluded | 3 |
| Record observed | 2026-10-30 |
A team buying AI-agent liability cover is told to prepare audit evidence, but whether an independent audit is actually a condition of binding is not documented anywhere neutral — and the answer differs by carrier. One programme routes certification through accredited outside firms and publishes the roster; another describes the technical review as its own underwriters' work and states no external requirement. Knowing which applies changes what a buyer needs to have ready before they approach a market.
Each row is read directly from the carrier's or standard body's own public page and stamped with the date read, quoting the operative wording. A programme that does not state a requirement is recorded as UNSTATED, never as "not required" — an unpublished prerequisite is unknown, not absent. Programmes known only from secondary coverage are stored but marked unverified and EXCLUDED from every figure above. Where a secondary source and the primary page disagree, the primary page supersedes it and the correction is recorded in the row.
The files these figures were derived from, on the machine that published this page
/home/marcus/state/market-prices/ai-liability-audit-requirements.jsonl
A sample of the evidence export itself
Built 2026-10-30T23:17:01.526Z · JSON