Solvency II reviewer sign-off: explain the last change

“The amount is fixed.” A preparer has changed an asset amount from €980,000 to €1,010,000. Both numbers came from the same workbook, but from different columns. A colleague preparing the review asks: why is the new amount right, and what else changed?

This fictional example illustrates a review problem, not a new regulatory rule. The €30,000 difference is not enough to explain the correction. The colleague needs to know what each column means, why the selected basis fits the reporting field, and whether the current filing contains the correction. A reassuring message saying “fixed” does not answer those questions.

Start with the filing identity

Put the entity, reference period, reporting scope and taxonomy release at the start of the handoff. Add the current revision and the person responsible for preparation. If the reviewer is comparing two versions, name both. “The latest file” is fragile when several people are working at once.

Our example is a synthetic Q3 2026 solo filing covering S.06.02, the list of assets quantitative reporting template (QRT). It is not a migration to the next reporting cycle. EIOPA’s reporting register says 2.8.2 applies through Q4 and annual 2026, with 2.10.0 applicable from Q1 2027. Confirm the applicable package and authority requirements for the actual filing. EIOPA reporting register.

Give the reviewer a question they can resolve

Here is a useful review request:

The workbook contains both book value and a prepared reporting amount. Confirm the intended reporting basis with the source owner, correct all affected positions, explain why the second position falls, and reconcile the total before resubmitting.

That tells the preparer what is missing and what would resolve it. “Please check the assets” leaves the scope unclear. A comment should distinguish a source question, a mapping question and an unexplained manual correction, because each needs different evidence.

In this example the workbook contains €980,000 book value and €1,010,000 already prepared Solvency II amount. The import does not calculate the valuation. The source owner must establish the basis before the reporting team can justify using the column. The Excel import example explains why checking a plausible-looking number alone is insufficient.

Reconcile the whole correction

A change to one source selection can affect more than the row the reviewer noticed. In the four-position example below, the second position decreases while the others increase. A blanket “add €30,000” explanation would be wrong.

The total is a reconciliation check, not proof of correct valuation. Keep the source-column explanation and the row-level evidence together. If a finding remains, explain whether it is unresolved, excluded under an authorized control, or addressed by a documented correction. Those are different outcomes.

A warning is a review question, not permission to ignore it

Our completed rehearsal began with four fictional corporate bonds and their linked asset details. The first submission had no blocking errors, but it did have a valuation warning. The selected book values did not reconcile with the prepared par amounts, prices and accrued interest. The product allowed the filing into review; the warning still needed a decision.

This is an important distinction. “Ready for review” means the reviewer can start their work. It does not mean that every reported number is right or that every warning should be accepted. In this example the reviewer requested changes instead of approving or waiving the warning.

The request was specific: confirm the reporting basis, correct all four positions, explain the decreasing second position, and retain the source cells. The preparer could tell what evidence would close the question. The filing moved to Changes requested before the correction was applied.

Follow the correction through the second review

We completed this workflow in an isolated synthetic environment on 25 October. We set up the starting amounts and source links for the example. The correction and review decisions then used the actual product interface with an administrator acting as preparer and a separate reviewer account. This demonstrates a handoff between two people; it does not test a permission boundary preventing administrators from approving.

The approved filing is revision 5; its corrected position form is revision 2. These are separate version counters, so the handoff must name the filing as well as the form. The final validation result contained no errors or warnings for this two-table fixture, and no rules were disabled or waived. The approval belongs to that corrected version. It does not attach itself to an earlier screenshot or to a spreadsheet someone still has open.

The example contains the position and asset-detail tables needed for this workflow. It is not an insurer's complete regulatory return or a test of national submission requirements. The supporting asset details matter: correcting an amount alone does not resolve missing classification or valuation information.

What should the reviewer do differently on the second pass?

Start with the requested change. Check the corrected value against its source, then review the other records affected by the same mapping. For DEMO-A02, the right question is why the amount fell to €1,470,000, not why it failed to rise with the other positions.

Next, compare the preparer's explanation with the current values. A correct comment attached to an older version is not enough. In this rehearsal the stored corrected form contains all four prepared amounts and the source-cell references; the approval snapshot preserves the corrected amounts too. The reviewer should be able to follow the same chain without reconstructing it from a chat history.

Finally, look at the new validation result. Confirm that the original finding is resolved and that the correction has not created a different problem. If a warning remains, describe its cause and the decision needed. “There are only warnings” is not a review conclusion. A clean validation result also does not replace the source owner's valuation judgment.

A handoff the reviewer can actually use

This filled record is the practical takeaway. Replace the example details with the evidence from your own controlled workflow; the amounts and workflow states below come from the completed synthetic rehearsal.

For your own handoff, replace the fictional confirmation with a link to the actual source-owner answer. If there is no confirmed answer, the handoff should say so. A deadline does not turn an assumption into evidence.

For a new review request, copy and complete this short handoff:

> Filing, period, scope and release: … > > Preparation owner and assigned reviewer: … > > Current filing revision and comparison version: … > > Changed values and total difference: … > > Source-owner confirmation and source cells: … > > Checks rerun, unresolved findings and decisions needed: … > > Next action, owner and due date: …

What changes require another check?

A changed source file or source column requires a fresh check of the source basis and affected records. A changed mapping requires a preview and reconciliation of every affected value. A manual correction needs its own explanation and source evidence, followed by validation and review of the changed filing. Do not treat the old clean result as evidence for the new values.

Reopening an approved filing also creates work for the next review. Check the changed version, revisit applicable waiver decisions and identify any earlier export that must no longer be used. A taxonomy change needs its own compatibility assessment; the taxonomy migration example explains that separate task.

A waiver is not a passed check

The existing SolvencyBridge guided walkthrough includes a separate synthetic example in which the reviewer records a filing-specific waiver for a remaining €100 difference. That is an explicit review decision, not a successful validation result and not a suggested tolerance for your organization.

Inspect the reason, evidence, scope and revision of any exclusion before approval. SolvencyBridge’s Help states that the approval snapshot retains the rule exclusions used for the decision. Reopening or requesting changes ends that approval boundary; a changed filing needs a new waiver decision. Do not carry an old decision forward simply because the number looks similar. Approve and lock a filing.

Approve the current snapshot, then check the export

Approval locks normal value editing, imports and preparation changes. Check the recorded actor, status, validation summary and effective exclusions. Export controls becoming available is a workflow state; it does not prove regulatory completeness or authority acceptance.

If an approved filing needs a correction, use the supported reopen process with a recorded reason. An earlier exported artifact still represents the earlier snapshot. Identify which artifact is current before the external submission owner uses it. Do not imply that someone can silently edit a locked filing.

Leave time for the second review

The Austrian FMA’s 2026 calendar lists 4 November for its Q3 solo reporting scope. Confirm your own authority, entity scope and exemptions rather than treating this as a universal deadline. Work backwards from the applicable date: source clarification, correction, validation, independent review and export checks all need an owner. FMA calendar. Use the reporting calendar to find the relevant authority and scope.

Before your next handoff, choose one changed amount and ask a colleague to follow it from the source to the current filing and the review decision. If they cannot, that is the next task to resolve.

Make your next review request easier to resolve: see how SolvencyBridge connects a correction, its source evidence and approval of the current snapshot. Watch the existing reporting walkthrough or request a guided evaluation to work through a supported filing scope with us.

Internal approval, export, external receipt and authority acceptance remain separate.

Sources and scope

EIOPA’s reporting register and the Austrian FMA calendar were rechecked on 25 October 2026. The English approval Help was checked on 25 October; the earlier source record remains available in the production notes. The amount example is synthetic, adapted from C02. The €100 waiver belongs to the separately published guided walkthrough. Neither is a regulatory threshold. The completed 25 October product rehearsal supports request changes, correction, source lineage, resubmission and approval of the corrected snapshot. Export readiness was observed; external submission and authority acceptance were not tested.