AI Oracle of Judgement

Harrison v Aegon / Transamerica Entities — NSW Supreme Court Commercial List — Model v10.1 — Updated 25 March 2026

The central issue
What reinsurance premiums did the Defendants actually receive under the Employment Agreement, the Consulting Agreement, and the reinsurance treaties to which those agreements refer — and were commissions paid to Harrison in accordance with the agreed contractual rates?
What is not in dispute
(a)There is one premium stream. Both the Employment Agreement and the Consulting Agreement operate on that same stream. This is not in dispute.
(b)Actual reinsurance premium data exists and was accessible throughout the relevant period. The Defendants have admitted this in writing through their own senior management.
(c)The calculation is mechanical. Once the underlying premium data is identified, the amount payable is determined arithmetically.
No explanation has been provided as to why data within the Defendants’ control, directly relevant to the central issue, has not been made available.
The binary outcome — there is no third pathway
If data is produced
The calculation is mechanical.
Plaintiff succeeds on arithmetic.
If data is not produced
The Court draws the available inference.
Plaintiff succeeds on inference.
There is no third pathway available to the Defendants.
Full document: S0-06 — The Central Question  |  Particulars: S2-04, Doc 2.7 (D3.70, 99.9% certainty)  |  Oral advocacy version: S10-04  |  Judicial decision path: S10-08 Part A
Probability Inputs
IDO Production Order granted
Contract Stream
P1 — Korea Rate Reduction82%
P2 — Deed Enforcement89%
P3 — EA Methodology Breach81%
Limitation Stream
P4 — s.55 Fraudulent Concealment89%
P5 — Demand Accrual / Route A78%
P6 — CA Methodology Breach72%
Evidence & Enforcement Stream
P7 — Component B Generalisation84%
P8 — Route C / Fresh Fraud79%
P9 — Conduct / Indemnity Costs78%
Quantum Floor
P10 — Worst-Case (% of claim)35%

The core proposition“The entire dispute reduces to one question: how much premium did Aegon actually receive? That figure, applied to the contractual rate, determines precisely what commission Harrison is owed. Aegon has the answer, admits it has the answer, and refuses to give it. No innocent party withholds the evidence that proves its innocence.”

Expected Recovery Value
$0
 
Conservative
$0
Base
$0
Favourable
$0
Overall Win Probability
0%
Contract OR-gate
Near-certain at base values — this is correct & structural. Focus on EV and P10 floor.
Deed SJ Probability
0%
P2 × P4 Route A
Settlement Floor
$0
P10 worst-case
SAI Index
0.00
Structural asymmetry
EFI Index
0.00
Evidence fragility
Joint Failure
0%
All 3 streams fail
Expected Recovery: P2 (Deed/SJ) × P4 (Route A) — base inputs
Shapley Value Decomposition — Driver Ranking
    Settlement Corridor
    Base EV (expected recovery)—
    Pre-filing—
    First Directions Hearing—
    After IDO / Discovery—
    Post-Evidence—
    Trial (BATNA Floor)—
    Stress Floor Analysis
    Scenario A — Stressed OR-gate (E inputs at 30%)—
    Scenario B — Correlated Collapse AND-gate (extreme lower bound)—
    Structural asymmetry gap (A minus B)—
    P10 settlement resistance floor—
    Joint failure probability (all 3 streams)—
    Innocent-explanation probability (0.0001% cap active)0.0001%