A one-page case study in taking a technically sound slide from a public actuarial deck and making its argument visible at a glance — same data, same source, no invented numbers.
Technical and actuarial teams are exceptionally good at getting the analysis right. What often lags is the last step: making sure a reader can find the point without doing the arithmetic themselves. A table of correct numbers is not the same thing as an argument — and in reporting that reaches investors, regulators, or the public, that gap has a real cost.
This is one slide, taken from a genuinely rigorous public deck, redesigned to close that gap.
| Description | Current Green Book % |
|---|---|
| Pure time preference | 0.5% |
| Catastrophic risk | 1.0% |
| Wealth effect | 2.0% |
| Total | 3.5% |
3.5%
overall discount rate (STPR)
Slides 8 and 9 are where the original makes the case for why catastrophic risk and the wealth effect are climate-sensitive — the argument this redesign pulls forward onto slide 7 itself. Worth reading in sequence to see the gap between what the deck argues and what slide 7 shows.
A headline says what the deck's own later slides (8 and 9) take two more pages to explain in prose.
A stacked bar shows the three components as parts of a whole, not three isolated rows.
The climate-exposed components are visually distinct from the one that isn't — nothing else changed.
The culture that produces excellent, rigorous analysis — actuarial reserving, regulatory returns, reinsurance renewal reports, investor decks — is rarely the same culture that optimises for how a reader receives it. That's not a criticism; it's a specialisation gap. Closing it doesn't mean changing the analysis. It means making sure the argument the numbers already support is the first thing a reader sees.
If you've got a deck, report, or regulatory submission where the analysis is strong but the slide isn't landing, I'll take one page and redesign it — no cost, no obligation — the same way as above.