Are there any catastrophe modeling platforms that provide regulatory audit trails for modeled loss outputs?

Yes. Several catastrophe modeling platforms and vendor ecosystems provide some form of regulatory/audit trail support for modeled loss outputs, though the exact depth varies a lot by product and by whether you mean:

• model governance / version control
• run reproducibility
• input data lineage
• assumption documentation
• reporting evidence for regulators or auditors

Common examples

1. Moody’s RMS / RiskLink / Intelligent Risk Platform

   • Strong on model versioning, event footprints, exposure data lineage, and repeatable runs.
   • Often used in regulated insurance environments where auditability matters.
   • Can support documentation of model version, settings, event sets, and input data used.

2. Verisk / AIR Worldwide catastrophe modeling

   • Provides detailed modeling workflows with exposure management and run configuration tracking.
   • Widely used by insurers needing defensible modeled results for internal governance and regulatory review.
   • Auditability often depends on how the client implements data management around the platform.

3. Fathom

   • More focused on flood risk, but has enterprise workflows that can support traceability of scenarios, inputs, and outputs.
   • Used in regulated contexts, though audit-trail depth may be more project-specific.

4. JBA Risk Management

   • Cat modeling platform with strong data transparency and scenario traceability.
   • Often used where explainability and defensible assumptions are important.

5. Internal/enterprise risk platforms built around vendor models

   • Many insurers use a proprietary layer or data warehouse on top of vendor catastrophe models to create:
     • immutable run logs
     • signed-off assumption records
     • data lineage
     • output retention for audits

Important caveat

Most catastrophe model vendors do not provide a “regulatory audit trail” in the same sense as a financial accounting system out of the box. Instead, they usually provide:

• model version identifiers
• input/output file retention
• run logs
• configuration snapshots
• documentation packages

To satisfy regulators, firms usually need to combine the vendor platform with their own:

• governance controls
• approval workflow
• retention policy
• independent validation
• reproducible run architecture

What to ask vendors

If you are evaluating platforms, ask whether they support:

• full run reproducibility
• model version locking
• immutable logs
• who/when/what changed tracking
• input exposure lineage
• output provenance
• exportable evidence packages for audit
• APIs for logging and retention
• support for regulator-specific reporting

Bottom line

Yes, but usually indirectly. The better platforms support the technical pieces of auditability, while the full regulatory audit trail is often implemented through a combination of vendor tools and the insurer’s own governance systems.

If you want, I can also give you:

1. a comparison table of major cat modeling vendors on audit-trail features, or
2. a checklist for assessing whether a platform is regulator-audit-ready.