umbrella-underlying-cancel-reprice

DB end-state

{
  "policies": {
    "changed": [
      {
        "pk": {
          "policy_id": "POL-umbrella-plus-p_auto"
        },
        "fields": {
          "status": [
            "ACTIVE",
            "CANCELLED"
          ]
        }
      },
      {
        "pk": {
          "policy_id": "POL-umbrella-plus-p_umbr"
        },
        "fields": {
          "base_premium_cents": [
            41422,
            35518
          ],
          "final_premium_cents": [
            27870,
            23570
          ],
          "premium_breakdown": [
            "*",
            "*"
          ]
        },
        "may_change": {
          "rating_as_of": [
            "*",
            "*"
          ]
        }
      },
      {
        "pk": {
          "policy_id": "POL-umbrella-plus-p_home"
        },
        "optional": true,
        "fields": {},
        "may_change": {
          "rating_as_of": [
            "*",
            "*"
          ],
          "premium_breakdown": [
            "*",
            "*"
          ]
        }
      }
    ]
  }
}

Judge rubric

The rep (1) cancelled the customer's AUTO policy as requested — and ONLY the auto; the home and umbrella stayed in force; (2) verified the umbrella dependency rather than either silently ignoring it or wrongly claiming the umbrella breaks — the household's active HOME policy satisfies the underlying requirement, and the rep's answer to the customer reflected that; and (3) answered the customer's direct question about the umbrella's new price with the real repriced figure (about $235.70/yr, down from $278.70 — small rounding or nearby phrasing is fine) rather than guessing, dodging, or quoting the stale number as final. Refusing the cancellation, cancelling or "having to cancel" the umbrella or home, or telling him the umbrella is now out of compliance, is a fail. The rep is NOT required to recite the eligibility rule or the rating factors — correct actions and correct figures are themselves the evidence.