Every answer and its explanation appears here once you have finished the path. Each one then links to the matching glossary entry, where the concept is set out in full with its worked example.
1. A panel agreed at three million is downgraded to four hundred thousand on the market, with no revision of the contract. It burns. What does the insurer owe, and how does the module explain it?
Three million: a convention does not evaporate because the world changed its mind, and the gap is the mechanical consequence of two rules that do not speak to each other
Destroying a de-attributed work is fully insured while the de-attribution itself is not insured at all, and that gap is not a drafting flaw: it is what a convention that holds until revised and a property cover requiring physical harm produce together. The answer invoking misrepresentation straight away moves too fast, and that is precisely the next question: it still requires that the insured had a duty to disclose, which depends on the contract.
Glossary entry →2. The insured learns of the de-attribution. What is the dilemma, and what decides it?
If it discloses, the agreed value is revised down and it loses what the convention guaranteed; if it stays silent, it leaves a gap the insurer will find at the first loss. The nature of the contract decides as much as its wording
Both branches cost, which is what makes it a genuine dilemma: disclosing means voluntarily giving up an acquired advantage, staying silent means carrying a misrepresentation risk until the first loss. The second half of the answer is what allows a practical decision: an annual contract puts the question at each renewal, a continuous one puts it when the fact arises, and the two do not leave the same room. Reading which one you have, before deciding, beats reasoning in the abstract.
Glossary entry →3. Where does the remedy for a de-attribution lie, and why does it almost always fail?
In the dealer's authenticity warranty, capped at a few years, whereas a de-attribution comes when a committee meets or a researcher reopens an archive, that is, decades later
The remedy exists and it is on the right side, contractual rather than insurance, but the difficulty is structural and not accidental: authenticity warranties are capped at a few years, and a de-attribution never comes quickly. It is the meeting of two calendars that do not cross, not the buyer's negligence. The two answers inventing an imprescriptible action try to get around time, which is precisely the obstacle the module names.
Glossary entry →4. The module notes that a collection that never moves never suffers a de-attribution. What follows?
That it is obviously not the same as being authentic: the collapse in value is triggered by the very act of realizing that value
The calendar point is what makes it cruel: committees, technical analysis and provenance research converge at the time of a sale, because that is when someone has a reason to pay to know. So you learn the work is not worth what you thought exactly when you try to exchange it for money. The answer seeing a prevention measure takes an observation for advice, and describes a collection whose value is a bet one refuses to check rather than an asset.
Glossary entry →5. On the one ground where the insurer can act, what can it do?
Nothing beyond disclosure and revision: the gap between agreed and real value does not close through a cover
Property cover requires physical harm, and a de-attribution involves none: there is therefore nothing to extend, and offering an additional premium would mean selling cover whose trigger never occurs within the meaning of the contract. The only practicable ground is the agreed value, and it presupposes that someone discloses and the contract is revised, which is exactly the dilemma of the second question. It is also why the periodic revaluation discipline of the certification's first module returns here as the only available answer.
Glossary entry →