You know the paragraph. The one that has to say something precise about flood, wildfire, and seismic exposure, without overreaching and without inviting follow up questions you cannot answer quickly. It shows up in quarterly reports and every institutional DDQ. The friction is not the idea. It is the assembly. You pull locations, check hazard screens, try to keep language consistent, then remember to note data sources and limits. Do that across a portfolio and the wording drifts. Due Diligence ~5 min to run Build Portfolio Climate Risk Disclosure Vic prompt Use Vic to build a climate risk disclosure for my portfolio assets. Purpose Supplies consistent, defensible climate risk language for investor materials. Reduces preparation time from roughly 30 minutes to about 5 minutes. Inputs Portfolio Assets Required Mandate Hazards Optional Risk Program Optional Audience Optional Output Format Optional Parent Task Session Id Optional Outputs A formatted disclosure document or section showing risk-band distribution, hazard exposures, single-hazard concentrations, and program linkages with methodology notes. Time saved Turns roughly 30 minutes of manual work into about 5 minutes. How it works Hand Vic your portfolio assets . You can also pass mandate hazards if your LPs care about specific perils, a risk program to tie findings to insurance and reserves, and an audience or output format if you need it to drop straight into a report. Run it with: Use Vic to build a climate risk disclosure for my portfolio assets. Vic maps each asset to FEMA National Risk Index relative risk bands and rolls the portfolio up into a clear distribution. It calls out concentrations in flood Special Flood Hazard Areas and flags higher exposure to wildfire, seismic, or severe weather. It then ties those exposures back to your program, including how coverage and limits address the risks, where reserves sit, and how acquisition screening lines up with what you see in the current book. The output is a formatted disclosure section you can drop into a quarterly report or a DDQ. It includes the risk band distribution, hazard exposures, and any single hazard concentrations. It also includes methodology notes that state data vintage, resolution, and coverage limits. That last part matters more than most people admit. It is where many ad hoc writeups break under review. There is a clear point of view here. Investors want a consistent frame they can compare period to period. FEMA NRI bands provide that frame. When the same bands appear each quarter, with the same definitions and notes, you remove ambiguity. Questions get narrower and easier to answer. It also keeps your internal story straight. If the disclosure shows a pocket of flood SFHA exposure or a cluster of wildfire risk, the link to insurance and reserves is right there. That makes it harder to ignore and easier to act. If you are screening new deals, the language matches what you already report, so you are not running two different standards. The time savings are real, but the bigger win is consistency. Five minutes gets you a disclosure that reads like it came from a single author with a clear method, not a patchwork of last minute edits. When the next DDQ asks for the same thing in slightly different words, you are not starting over.