I've spent my entire working life in product. Over that time I've become what I'd call a general expert. Not a specialist who went broad. A business person who specialises in technology, with enough scar tissue across enough domains to see patterns that specialists miss.

I coach my teams the same way. Business person first. Product second. Technology third.

Product leaders make margin calls. PE, VC, private money — none of them accept spread betting across ten initiatives and hoping three land. Every product decision is a capital allocation decision. Which to place, which to cut, which to double down on — and the conviction to defend those calls with commercial rigour, not slide decks. The best product leaders don't just understand the P&L. They shape it.

AI has accelerated this dramatically.

I am now capable of conceiving an idea, formulating the strategy, the go-to-market, the commercial proposition, architecting the solution, and building it. In complete isolation. Not theoretically. I've done it twice — both enterprise-grade, both in production.

That's not a boast. It's a data point. AI hasn't replaced my expertise. It's expanded the surface area of what I can directly influence.

This matters well beyond product management.

The strongest underwriters have always been general experts — synthesising risk, regulation, distribution, claims, and data into a single decision. AI is expanding that surface area too. More back-office intelligence reaching the point of decision. More domains converging on one desk.

The market is already pricing this. Zurich pursued Beazley six times over eight months. Rejected at 1,230p. Rejected at 1,280p. Agreed in principle at 1,335p — a 63% premium, £8 billion. That's not M&A persistence. It's the market valuing the general expert.

This rise is occurring across every domain — operations, distribution, claims, actuarial. It can only accelerate where software vendors bake it into their design principles.

Zurich and Beazley will combine $15 billion GWP across P&C and specialty. Every insurance software investor is watching. Building for each paradigm separately is a hedge. PE and VC don't fund hedges. They fund conviction.

A clear architectural principle is forming across everything I've built. The patterns are consistent regardless of domain. P&C or specialty. Product or underwriting. The structural question is the same: how do you serve general experts without lowest-common-denominator software?

I've already done the hard yards. Twenty years of expertise across every domain in this piece — applied with conviction. The architecture exists. And it has already been recognised...

The slides walk through why.

#ProductLeadership #InsurTech #AI #EnterpriseTransformation #Underwriting #Beazley #Zurich #LloydsOfLondon #SpecialtyInsurance #MergersAndAcquisitions

First Comment

Zurich pursued Beazley six times over eight months. Rejected at 1,230p. Rejected at 1,280p. Finally agreed in principle at 1,335p — a 63% premium, valuing the business at £8 billion.

That persistence isn't just M&A determination. It's the market pricing the general expert.

Beazley's value is built on exactly what the slides describe — underwriters synthesising risk, regulation, cyber, distribution, and data into singular decisions. That capability commanded six approaches and a price Zurich's own analysts flagged as stretching surplus capital.

Now the architectural question becomes real at $15 billion combined GWP: can one platform serve both P&C and specialty paradigms without compromise? That's not a theoretical exercise any more. It's an integration programme with a deadline.

The general expert isn't a concept. It's an £8 billion valuation.