Reconciling two conflicting loss-cost reports

An insurer prepares a simplified loss-cost report for a clearly defined annual portfolio. The policy table contains one thousand earned policy-years. A claim table lists eighty included claims and two hundred forty thousand dollars of matching gross loss. A separate recovery table records forty thousand dollars, but the first analyst uses gross severity while the second silently subtracts recoveries. Their presentations use the same label, pure premium, even though the loss bases differ. A third report joins every payment transaction to a policy and sums exposure without checking whether policies repeat. The project sponsor wants a defensible baseline before a more complex predictive model is proposed. The analyst must identify which quantities are comparable and document how the reporting definition affects each result.