AI agents in insurance operations: five decisions before granting action permissions

An AI assistant can help prepare information. An agent with access to business systems may also change records or communicate with customers. For an insurance intermediary, the practical question is what authority the tool should receive at each stage of a workflow.

The ICO opened a call for evidence on agentic AI on 8 October 2026, closing on 20 November 2026. It asks about areas including security, transparency and accountability. This is an evidence-gathering exercise, not a new set of rules.

The five decisions below are a suggested management framework from RRCA. They are not an ICO-prescribed checklist or a substitute for assessing the requirements applicable to your firm.

1. Define the task before granting access

Start with a specific activity: for example, preparing a response to a routine customer enquiry. List the information needed and the systems involved. Separate the ability to read information, create a draft and change a live record. A broad account permission should not be the starting point for a narrowly defined task.

2. Name the person who owns the decision

Decide who can approve the proposed action and what they need to check. In a hypothetical enquiry workflow, the reviewer might compare the draft with the customer record and relevant policy wording before dispatch. A useful review gives that person enough information and authority to change or stop the action.

3. Decide what happens when the result is uncertain

A timeout does not tell you whether a message was sent or a record changed. Agree how the team will check the actual outcome before trying again. This avoids turning a technical interruption into duplicate communications or conflicting records.

4. Keep evidence that explains the action

A useful decision record should help a colleague understand the task, the information relied upon, who reviewed it and what actually happened. Choose a proportionate record for the activity. Avoid collecting unnecessary personal information simply because the system can retain it.

5. Review permissions as the workflow changes

An initial pilot may only draft text. A later version may send messages or update a case. Revisit the access and review arrangements whenever that boundary changes. The original decision to trial a drafting assistant does not answer every question about a more autonomous workflow.

A practical next step

Choose one proposed AI-assisted process and write down its read, draft and action permissions. Identify the owner, the approval point and how the team would investigate an uncertain outcome. Use the gaps as the agenda for a focused governance discussion.

RRCA provides compliance support and regulatory advisory services. If you would like to discuss how this approach fits your operating model, contact the team at https://www.rrcompliance.com/.

Primary source: ICO, Agentic AI call for evidence, opened 8 October 2026: https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/ico-and-stakeholder-consultations/2026/10/agentic-ai-call-for-evidence/

Prepared 14 October 2026. Practical commentary; application depends on your activities and circumstances.