Love those new links on the Blogroll, Sop, and I couldn’t resist adding this reminder of the new “Nowdy’s favorite” since today’s SLABBED Daily is a pass-a-long of State Farm OG 75-01 and OG 75-07 one of our reader’s sent (along with assurance neither was restricted).
Now that I’ve actually seen an OG, it’s even more of a mystery to me that all such documents are not readily available – but, then again, I’m not a lawyer and I find many such mysteries in Katrina litigation.
In the program audits I do in my off-blog life, the word “consistent” figures prominently. Program audits, or in this case what I suppose should be called “product audits” are as detailed as financial audits. The difference is simply that one follows the trail of words and the other the trail of money.
A “policy consistent” OG, for example, would have an audit trail that led directly to one or more identified terms of the related policy. However, it is not an OG alone that must be “policy consistent”. Every aspect of the policy is subject to this same test and there is no exception for a disaster, regardless of the magnitude, but there should be a “policy consistent” disaster OG.
Obviously there was not or the word “discernable” would have a “policy-consistent” audit trail and not become an issue in litigation. In a program/product audit, use of an untrackable word would be declared an “inconsistency” – and when such an “inconsistency” appears in a company sanctioned document, it is accorded the same treatment as a major “inconsistency” in the company’s books uncovered in a financial audit (think MCI).
For a suggestion as to why “policy-inconsistent” directives have not been a show-stopper, so to speak, I offer a “post-consistent” picture worth a 1000 words from my new “favorite” link while I grab a cracker and call it “lunch”.