The battlecards state that a peer review is more detailed than an audit. Also, it says audits perform "recalculations" but a peer review does not, what does recalculations mean in this situation? I would suspect a recalculation of the AA's work is as detailed as a review gets no?
Comments
A peer reviewer assesses whether the methods use to obtain the ultimate loss are reasonable - For example, the ELR used in the BF, Berquist Sherman techniques applied, selection of final LDFs etc.
An auditor will check the actual calculations - For example, if the CDF is 1.2 and incurred is 1000, then the Ultimate loss should be 1200.
A peer reviewer is more detailed in the sense that they go into the actual actuarial considerations made by the AA in the AAR while an auditor just checks whether the numbers are correct mechanically, based on what was decided by the AA.