From all of EIOPA's comments on the new column C0245, it seems the intention of S.30.03 C0245 is to indicate if, and to what extent, any layer is not 100% "covered" i.e. does C0245 equal C0230 or not (which is our understanding of EIOPA's answer to Insurance Europe Q&A document "ECO-SLV-23-165": Coverage of a layer covered by reinsurance - C0245: Clarification is requested regarding what is meant by "amount of maximum coverage for a layer of a treaty" as the scope of the layer is reported in field C0210: Limit (The amount specified as the limit in the reinsurance treaty) EIOPA: In some non-proportional treaties, the excess is only partially covered. For example, an XL treaty may cover up to 200 in excess of 150, but providing a limited coverage of the excess, e.g., 80%. Therefore, C0210 would be 200, but C0245 would be 80% * 200 = 160. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This answer contradicts the LOG guidance and Q&A#2692 which states that “in the case the treaty only includes one layer, this cell will be equal to C0240”. But this should not be the case where a treaty/layer has not been 100% placed (ie sum S.30.04 C0100 for this treaty/layer/section is <> 1) because S.30.03 C0240 is supposed to show the 100% allocation (as per LOG files for S.30.03 C0240) but C0245 may not be the 100% allocation amount, as the EIOPA example shows.